Page 16 of 30 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 300

Thread: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

  1. #151
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No offense, but hopefully we can get Right in here to talk about law things because this makes no sense.

    Now, I understand that he would have to prove somehow there was some kind of legitimate negative effect upon him BASED on the statements for it to happen.

    But how can one "prove" a negative. If I say "Al Sharpton once said that slavery was good, we just need to have the whites being the slaves instead. That's the correct order of things, and what god would want, the white men beneath our heel" how can he "prove" he didn't say it? You're asking to prove a negative and to my knowledge our court system does not require a negative to be proven.

    Indeed, the fact that those that made the claim have chosen not to retract it despite being informed that its false and without being able to give any further evidence that it is true in and of itself proves it to at least be unverifiable.

    What you're suggesting is the proof of a negative, and I do not know of such a standard in our court. Rush would have to make his case that he actually suffered an tangible negative effect DUE to the words (that's positive proof) but his "proof" that they were stating it is untrue is their inability to present proof that he actually stated it.

    If the law worked as you said, which I'm almost positive it doesn't, slander/libel would almost never be able to happen because you can't prove that you did not say anything if the person making the claim doesn't give a reference or some kind of back up to when you said it.

    None taken, but it is quite easy to use Google. But if you want a lawyer (Right's still in school), there are actual practicing lawyers on the board.


    And the law does work exactly as I said, which is why there aren't alot of libel slander cases against public figures. There sure are some, however.


    If the law didn't work exactly as I said, the freedom of speech would be infringed by the burden of needed to verify the veracity of everything you say before you say it. Even false statements are protected, unless the plaintiff proves that the person who said it, or wrote it, knew it was true or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.

    I wonder why Page Six is able to stay in business, btw? They are often grossly negligent with regard to truth ....

  2. #152
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by SpotsCat View Post
    "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well." -- Booker T. Washington

    Why, that Booker T. must have been a deeply racist person.....er...um...with a second.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #153
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    None taken, but it is quite easy to use Google. But if you want a lawyer (Right's still in school), there are actual practicing lawyers on the board.


    And the law does work exactly as I said, which is why there aren't alot of libel slander cases against public figures. There sure are some, however.


    If the law didn't work exactly as I said, the freedom of speech would be infringed by the burden of needed to verify the veracity of everything you say before you say it. Even false statements are protected, unless the plaintiff proves that the person who said it, or wrote it, knew it was true or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.

    I wonder why Page Six is able to stay in business, btw? They are often grossly negligent with regard to truth ....

    I think you misunderstand severely here. The lack of defamation cases is not due to the suspension of natural debate law which is what you are proposing here with your "prove the negative" meme. It is because many defamation suits fail to show how the defamatory statements have caused harm to the plaintiff. I already posted what goes into a defamation suit and it was pretty clear. Care to address that?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #154
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think you misunderstand severely here. The lack of defamation cases is not due to the suspension of natural debate law which is what you are proposing here with your "prove the negative" meme. It is because many defamation suits fail to show how the defamatory statements have caused harm to the plaintiff. I already posted what goes into a defamation suit and it was pretty clear. Care to address that?


    j-mac

    Really? I am waiting for the support for the claim being made by several here that the burden of proof is on the defendant. It should be pretty easy to come up with. And, btw, defamation is not the same thing as libel, nor is it the same thing as slander. Just to clarify.

  5. #155
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Really? I am waiting for the support for the claim being made by several here that the burden of proof is on the defendant. It should be pretty easy to come up with. And, btw, defamation is not the same thing as libel, nor is it the same thing as slander. Just to clarify.

    I am clear on the definitions, are you?

    It's all right here, and it doesn't agree with your stance that the Plaintiff must prove the statements false.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058310558


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #156
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    None taken, but it is quite easy to use Google. But if you want a lawyer (Right's still in school), there are actual practicing lawyers on the board.

    And the law does work exactly as I said, which is why there aren't alot of libel slander cases against public figures. There sure are some, however.

    If the law didn't work exactly as I said, the freedom of speech would be infringed by the burden of needed to verify the veracity of everything you say before you say it. Even false statements are protected, unless the plaintiff proves that the person who said it, or wrote it, knew it was true or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.

    I wonder why Page Six is able to stay in business, btw? They are often grossly negligent with regard to truth ....
    I'm not disagreeing with the notion its harder for public figures. This is absolutely true.

    However the difference between Page Six and what happened with Rush is generally what's being said on Page Six, that happens to be untrue, doesn't generally have a legitimate chance of being shown damaged some sort of business venture.

    Regardless of it all, it still basically rests on the notion that I still believe its patently obvious that if these sports reporters even gave two ****s about doing a good job rather than making a hit piece then Limbaugh would still be part of the user group. I find it disturbing, and rather pathetic, watching liberals here completely and utterly condoning the sinking of a persons private business ventures through the wide spread use of false information. I find it hillariously ironic its many of the same people who continually bitch about the birther buisness.

  7. #157
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am clear on the definitions, are you?

    It's all right here, and it doesn't agree with your stance that the Plaintiff must prove the statements false.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058310558


    j-mac

    Perhaps you could read down the page of your own source, where it states the plaintiff must prove that all elements of a statement are false.:


    Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

  8. #158
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No offense, but hopefully we can get Right in here to talk about law things because this makes no sense.

    Now, I understand that he would have to prove somehow there was some kind of legitimate negative effect upon him BASED on the statements for it to happen.

    But how can one "prove" a negative. If I say "Al Sharpton once said that slavery was good, we just need to have the whites being the slaves instead. That's the correct order of things, and what god would want, the white men beneath our heel" how can he "prove" he didn't say it? You're asking to prove a negative and to my knowledge our court system does not require a negative to be proven.

    Indeed, the fact that those that made the claim have chosen not to retract it despite being informed that its false and without being able to give any further evidence that it is true in and of itself proves it to at least be unverifiable.

    What you're suggesting is the proof of a negative, and I do not know of such a standard in our court. Rush would have to make his case that he actually suffered an tangible negative effect DUE to the words (that's positive proof) but his "proof" that they were stating it is untrue is their inability to present proof that he actually stated it.

    If the law worked as you said, which I'm almost positive it doesn't, slander/libel would almost never be able to happen because you can't prove that you did not say anything if the person making the claim doesn't give a reference or some kind of back up to when you said it.
    As I understand it, Jackalope is pretty close to right on this(note, I am not a lawyer either, so take it for what it is worth). There are two reasons why public figures don't do alot of slander lawsuits, one being they create more problems than they solve, and because it is painfully hard to win since you have to prove intent.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #159
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with the notion its harder for public figures. This is absolutely true.

    However the difference between Page Six and what happened with Rush is generally what's being said on Page Six, that happens to be untrue, doesn't generally have a legitimate chance of being shown damaged some sort of business venture.

    Regardless of it all, it still basically rests on the notion that I still believe its patently obvious that if these sports reporters even gave two ****s about doing a good job rather than making a hit piece then Limbaugh would still be part of the user group. I find it disturbing, and rather pathetic, watching liberals here completely and utterly condoning the sinking of a persons private business ventures through the wide spread use of false information. I find it hillariously ironic its many of the same people who continually bitch about the birther buisness.


    You may have a point with regard to harm or damages (although, that is open for debate), however, in order to win a suit, Rush must first prove that the statements are false, and that the person making/writing them knew them to be false, or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.

  10. #160
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Looking at it closer.

    No, Rush Limbaugh does not have to "prove" that he didn't say the things they sayd he said.

    However

    As a public figure, for it to be libel/slander, you are correct in him having to prove that the person that published the information knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard to its truth.

    Now, reckless disregard is up to interpritation. Some may find requoting a line posted in a biased blog story, that reposts it from a biased book, a reckless disregard. I am unsure on what could argument could be made in regards to this if its shown that after announcing it to be false there was no further investigation by the author and no retraction or correction attempt made. Additionally, if any person in print or TV media continued using these quotes AFTER Limbaugh stated them false...giving reasonable reason to not take these things as truth...then you could also potentially have a case.

    So yes, from a definition stand point they most assuredly did libel and defame Limbaugh. From a law point, its a much more difficult case due to the way we treat public figures. However, unlike most cases of public figures, this one has a slightly more tangiable example of "harm" than simple "loss of reputation".

    So no, Limbaugh does not have to "prove" that those comments are false, but would need to prove they were stated knowing they were false or recklessly.

    Sorry, I searched google, and I've still yet to show anything that states that Limbaugh must "prove a negative" by "proving" that the statements are false. Nothing's came up with that so far from what I've seen. Only that he must prove damage and that it was done intentionally or recklessly.

Page 16 of 30 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •