Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 300

Thread: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

  1. #191
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 10-16-09 at 03:28 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Folks like Rachel Maddow continued to report it as fact after it was already proven false because she in fact reported it twice, once after Rush called Sotomyer a racist and now again with regards to the Rams purchase. This is a clear cut case of slander and the intent of malice is cut and dry. I say sue the bitch.

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    One would hope he had some recourse for at least having it retracted. It's just a damned shame that because he has controversy as a part of his job, he has to suffer the predations of classless attacks on his personal character in the form of lies and distortions.

    But if the liberals around here are any indication, that's just A-ok because he is a big mean bad bad man.

  4. #194
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.

  5. #195
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  6. #196
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Here's a blog quoting Lis Wiehl from Fox saying Rush has to prove the quotes are fabricated:
    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.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    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.
    So then you agree with Macarthyism then?

  8. #198
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    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.
    Keep in mind, too, that on this, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it's probably a preponderance of the evidence -- that is, "more likely than not."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #199
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?
    Because up till now there's been nothing close to a legitimate case that it somehow "damaged" him in any wya.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    True. But there's a difference.

    In one case, people were citing and actual news story from a legitimate news source. A source that you're supposed to be able to assume is unbaised and factual.

    This one?

    Most are citing a political activist blog or that blogs source directly, which is this book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America”.

    Now if that’s not a title that screams “unbiased source of factual information” I don’t know what does. Lets go further and look at its description.

    “Perhaps one of the most ridiculous phenomena of recent years is Bernard Goldberg’s right-wing and unforgivably successful 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. The vast majority of his targets are no different from the picks of any hyperventilating fan of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly: feminists, academics, media moguls, newspaper columnists, liberals, and a few obscure cartoonists and painters. But it's thin on the right wing politicos, their media and corporate echochamber who have landed us in the mess we're in.
    Jack Huberman provides us with an entertaining and informative bestiary of the real crooks, liars and cheats who are screwing up America. These are not just the people making asses of themselves or getting more media attention than they deserve. Huberman restores the likes of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, James A. Baker III, Gary Bauer Brent Bozell, Ann Coulter, Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, Leo Strauss and Ralph Reed to their rightful place in the national hall of shame, along with such oozing pustules of cultural putrefaction as the Olson Twins, Mel Gibson, William Bennett, Katie Couric, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, Oprah Winfrey, Teletubbies, the Simpson sisters, and God.“

    Hmm, so being made specifically to counter a conservative book he didn’t like. Yep, its shaping up to be amazingly good SOURCE material. Lets continue on to an editorial review from Publishers Weekly:

    “More than a mere hit list of America's most despicable individuals, corporations, affinity groups and think tanks, this droll and acerbic refresher course on the issues confronting the 21st-century United States marks Huberman's (The Bush-Hater's Handbook) latest foray into the dark side. Starting with the premise that right-wing pundit Ann Coulter is an evil alien manipulated by crypto-fascist Scientologists, he occasionally gets carried away with his modus operandi, becoming just as inanely self-righteous as the reactionaries he's decrying. Entry 67, about SUV buyers, offers some chilling statistics about the vehicles. But to argue that all SUV owners are antisocial misfits meriting utter contempt, when many a suburban soccer mom is simply trying to protect her family from being obliterated by a three-ton behemoth on the way to Disney World, is self-defeating. Though Huberman takes his readers' sympathies for granted, the unabashedly left-wing bias and sheer breadth of this frontal assault on Republican politics and culture are factually convincing. Some early entries (J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Candace Bushnell) may raise a few eyebrows, but overall Huberman serves up a frothy indictment to warm liberal innards. (July)”

    That’s right. They’re quoting as a legitimate source a book that starts with the notion that Ann Coulter is an alien.
    This isn’t so much a case of someone picking up a news story that turns out to have been based on false information. Its people picking up information from a biased source, who got his information (and links to it) to a source that is obviously biased AND borderline satirical in nature.

  10. #200
    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
    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.

    Her actual 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."

    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

    His summary is well within reasonable, combined with the knowledge that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.



    BTW, has Rush actually flat out denied this? I only saw in Bozell's newsbuster's thing where Rush said if he had said such a thing, he'd have been gone long ago (paraphrasing from memory).

Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •