- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Good idea there. When you got nothing, feign even more outrage so you are not speaking to me, so you don't actually have to defend your foolishness. Very clever of you, in a vile sort of way.
Here's an examiner article from last night on whether or not Rush has a case. Interesting read:
Rush Limbaugh accuses CNN and MSNBC of repeating libelous lies
He would have to show the media was not merely “sloppy” in their reporting, but willfully misrepresenting the facts with the intent of damaging his reputation.
roger goodell has been doing his best to clean up the image of the nfl. the nfl doesn't need his money, there will be plenty of others lined up to take his place. rush was going to be a minority owner, so really, i guess you don't much either.Really I guess you don't know much about the NFL first off they would love to have his money and so would the city of St.Lo, second as far as the Image thing please don't even go their.
I suggest all of you including Roger take a look in his own backyard first.
Enjoy reading this website.
NFL Crimes NewsBlog
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.
Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.
Oh piss off. You have done nothing but attempt to impugn the characters of your opponents and confess that you have no problem with lying to make digs at political opponents. Your credibility is nil so why would I have any interest in listening to more of your vile lies and distortions?
Oh that's right...I'm not.
See, it isn't all that selective. It's equal opportunity outrage at liars. :2wave:
From that source:
Right's not a lawyer, or at least, I've gotten the impression he has not grad'd law school and passed a bar exam.
(However, I do like to read his law postings, I have to say.)
Except that is all lies. Hypocrisy is something you are known for, and it raises it's head again.
Correct, but he is both knowledgeable on the topics as a law student, and honest enough to keep most partisan spin out of what he says when it directly relates to law.
Yes, that's because of the higher burden of proof when media report on public figures. They have to prove not just knowingly reporting false information (or disregard blah blah), but malice with intent to harm reputation. Or something like that.
There's some pretty big hurdles to jump here.
And you being a lying stain is something you are known for. Funny that.
Until I hear something in the way of retraction for the lies and misrepresentations about me, you can expect that any response from you is only going to be to point out what a liar you are. So go ahead and lie some more. Prove my point for me.
About the only place Rush might have a case then is after he denied making the comments, if places kept reporting it as he made the comments, he might be able to prove something, I think.
Keep up the good work there, keep making the unsubstantiated claims you can't prove and complain about. Have fun!
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.
Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.
(snip ... ) One of the things he can do is pick up the ball and run straight to court. Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and Fox News legal analyst, said Limbaugh has grounds for a libel suit if he can prove he never uttered those words.
"If he didn't say that, his people should come out and say that," Wiehl said. "If it's true he didn't say that, then this is horrible what those organizations are trying to do to slime him."
As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it.
"It's a higher standard," she said. "If they actually made up a quote that cost him a deal that he would've otherwise gotten, then yeah, he's got a case."
more ...
JIM McMAHON - CHICAGO
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.
Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.
It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.
It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.
the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.
It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.
Here's a blog quoting Lis Wiehl from Fox saying Rush has to prove the quotes are fabricated:
All these people whining away simply have no real notion of what free speech is all about. Rush used his. Now he is facing the repercussions for using it as he has done.
THAT'S what free speech is all about ladies and gentlemen. :2wave:
What Limbaugh initially has to prove is not difficult -- CNN, for example, clearly made the false statement, it was made to third parties, and it was definitely about Limbaugh himself.
On that, CNN would have to prove "truth," which they probably can't -- other possible defenses such as consent, privilege, "opinion," "fair" comments, inadvertence, etc., almost certainly do not apply.
The one thing Limbaugh would have to prove which would be difficult is, because he's a public figure, that CNN had actual malice toward him (NYT vs. Sullivan). But their further reluctance to retract the statement when challenged, essentially doubling down on the charge, may help him there, as it may establish that CNN had a reckless disregard for the truth.
the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?
I think this goes on alot. One place makes a claim about something that gets carried initially in some news source. Any further reporting using Lexus, and they find the first, inaccurate report, and the innacurracies get embedded in the system. James Carvelle claimed that was how some of the poor reporting of the Whitewater story developed. The first, breaking news article was in error, and that same article was used as a reference for all the later reporting, or articles based on the first one. Take the source and the story for what it is worth, I make no claims as to veracity of it, and point to it as an example of how it works only.
Actually what I see is a blogger giving his interpretation of her words. Her quote doesn’t say he has to “prove he never uttered those words. She states specifically:
“If he didn’t say that, his people should come out and say that” and that’s EXACTLY what he’s done.
One can not “prove” in any way shape or form something they did not say when the person making that accusation, lets say even at this time the book in question, doesn’t actually give any reference at all to when or where he said it. It’s not improbable, its 100% impossible. There’s no humanly possible way to “prove” you never said something, anywhere, ever.
"If he didn't say that, his people should come out and say that," Wiehl said. "If it's true he didn't say that, then this is horrible what those organizations are trying to do to slime him."
As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it.
"It's a higher standard," she said. "If they actually made up a quote that cost him a deal that he would've otherwise gotten, then yeah, he's got a case."
If the matter revolved around a non-public figure, the potential lawsuit would be a "slam dunk," Wiehl said.
"[Limbaugh] would literally have to prove that whoever put that out did so knowingly in an attempt to hurt him," she continued. "If I were his lawyer, I would argue actual malice. If it's fabricated, what other reason would they make it up?"
Limbaugh May Have Grounds for Libel Suit, Legal Analysts Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?