Since the media are sourcing a book, I'd imagine he'd have to prove the book made stuff up; probably in a he said - he said situation such as that, credibility of each of the parties, and notes, tapes, or any kind of sourcing that the author had would be relevant. It's an interesting case. However, as far as webpages sourcing the book, or media reporting it and sourcing it, Rush would have no case, I'd imagine.
I think the cases against the author, and the ones against media reporting what is published in the book, would be different. If he's gonna sue the media for reporting what's in the book, I'd bet he has to prove it's a fabrication, that they published with malice intending to harm his reputation, and did so knowing the information was false (or the reckless disregard thing).
And to bring it full circle, a poster posting such a link, sourcing a book, is well within the scope of acceptable sourcing. Particularly since the quotes in question are now in the media. I hear Rush is threatening to sue CNN and MSNBC over this. I hope he does. Could be interesting to watch.
Last edited by jackalope; 10-16-09 at 12:58 PM.
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.
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
Oh that's right...I'm not.
See, it isn't all that selective. It's equal opportunity outrage at liars.
but thanks for tipping your hand.
Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.