• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

You realize there's a difference between PRIVATE business and PUBLIC office don't you?

If Rush Limbaugh stated a quote that an individual on the left said and that quote was absolutely untrue, and if he stated numerous contextless things to then label them as a derogatory name, and I believed that kept that person from entering into a business transaction then yes...I would be upset with Rush as well. And it'd be wrong as well. And it'd be bad for this country as well.

To my knowledge he hasn't done that. If he ever does, I'll happily scream about it.

Going after POLITICAL figures running for PUBLIC OFFICE elected by INDIVDIUAL CITIZENS is not the same as lying about a private citizen attempting to enter into a private contract with a private organization.



Yes, and as I said, I believe his partners only dropped him due to the situation at hand which came about:

1. Due to a leak to the media which was against the rules of the situation
2. Due to sports writers fomenting huge discontent by using completely false quotes and context less quotes to claim he's a racist
3. Due to athletes and owners then using those quotes as the basis for causing a huge uproar

This uproar was not outwardly due to him being "devisive" or "controversial" but was focused around him being a "racist", with the hatchet job stories by many of those sports casterse being the foundation for that.

His partners knew he was controversial when they approached HIM to join. He told them there may be some opposition in ownership due to his fame/infamy, so they knew that. I don't doubt there'd have been some controversy surrounding him.

But based on what's happened in the past week and the foundation for most of it I see zero reason why his group would've dropped him, the commissioner would've came out hinting he'd be against him, or owners coming out stating publicly their opposition to him, if it hadn't been wrongly leaked early and if he hadn't been lied about to foment greater rage and give a foundation of which to complain.
sharpton and jackson are not "officials", are they? they are well known public figures, as is rush. and i'm not so sure about "the rules of the situation".....what are they exactly?

if rush has been lied about, then he's been slandered or libeled, and he has the option to sue. do you think that will happen?
 
Sharpton, and Jackson are poverty pimps... They are not immune to the law either. They liable Limbaugh and get away with it, why? Because right now it is politically acceptable to lie about those who don't agree with you ideologically.

How sad.


j-mac
they may have libeled rush, i guess it's up to rush to sue, right? then they won't get away with it.
 
sharpton and jackson are not "officials", are they? they are well known public figures, as is rush. and i'm not so sure about "the rules of the situation".....what are they exactly?

if rush has been lied about, then he's been slandered or libeled, and he has the option to sue. do you think that will happen?


I suppose if he chooses not to sue, (although, he would have a strong case if he did) But if he chooses not to then I suppose you will say something like, 'see, there must be legs to it'.....


j-mac
 
they may have libeled rush, i guess it's up to rush to sue, right? then they won't get away with it.


You don't have to be litigious in order to be right do you? I mean, isn't that the problem with our society now?


j-mac
 
sharpton and jackson are not "officials", are they? they are well known public figures, as is rush. and i'm not so sure about "the rules of the situation".....what are they exactly?

Did I say I have an issue with Sharpton and Jackson saying what they're saying? No. I said their hypocrites, but not that they can't say it.

I'm confused, what business oppertunity did Rush potentially cause Sharpton or Jackson to lose out of due to Rush stating false quotes made by them or stating things they said without context?

if rush has been lied about, then he's been slandered or libeled, and he has the option to sue. do you think that will happen?

Doubtful. No real point. He doesn't need the money coming from suing them. He's not going to get a chance to get back into the team ownership, which is what he'd want. It'd be time consuming and stress inducing, and in the end likely barely actually covered by the media so there'd likely be little mainstream vindication. There's no real reason to actually go forward with it.
 
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:
 
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:

Wasn't that pretty much the righties position during the Dixie Chicks brouhaha?;)
 
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:


No one has said that the people lying about what Limbaugh has said in the past don't have the right to say it. What we are looking at here is actionable civilly. here is the synopsis of the law as it is interpreted by experts.


Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

Defamation, Libel and Slander Law


As you will note here, Limbaugh would have a great case not only against the poverty pimps, but against CNN, and anyone else that furthered the lies against him.

j-mac
 
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:

Free speech doesn't entitle others to slander and libel you though; which is what is happening.
 
how awful. kinda like he attempts to torpedo candidates he doesn't like for their speech, right? do you really believe he's not divisive? if he wasn't, would this have happened?

did his partner drop him? if so, isn't the onus on his partner to show some cajones? sports radio callers don't get a vote on potential nfl owners.

I doesn't matter how divisive he is, that doesn't give license to slander and libel the man. If he really was a racist and really said racist things, ok maybe then (burden of proof is on those who want to slander though). But he didn't, people are going overboard with what he said and not listening to the words and looking at the situation. And because he's divisive a lot of people hate him. But those who hate him still can't break the law just because it's Limbaugh. Sorry, but his rights are just as important as anyone else's and must be upheld.
 
I doesn't matter how divisive he is, that doesn't give license to slander and libel the man. If he really was a racist and really said racist things, ok maybe then (burden of proof is on those who want to slander though). But he didn't, people are going overboard with what he said and not listening to the words and looking at the situation. And because he's divisive a lot of people hate him. But those who hate him still can't break the law just because it's Limbaugh. Sorry, but his rights are just as important as anyone else's and must be upheld.


the burden of proof is on those accusing someone of slander, or libel, not the other way around.
 
the burden of proof is on those accusing someone of slander, or libel, not the other way around.

Yes, but if you're making a claim you have to prove it. So Rush goes in to court because the slander/libel is essentially easy to see in this case. So what will have to be proven to avoid slander/libel is that the comments made against the man were true. If it can be proven true, then defense. If it cannot be proven true, then Rush will win in court.
 
Yes, but if you're making a claim you have to prove it. So Rush goes in to court because the slander/libel is essentially easy to see in this case. So what will have to be proven to avoid slander/libel is that the comments made against the man were true. If it can be proven true, then defense. If it cannot be proven true, then Rush will win in court.

No, actually the burden of proof is on Rush; he must prove the statements are false, and the person who made them either knew they were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. As a public figure, the burden of proof on plaintiff Rush is even higher, if I remember correctly. But the burden lays would lie with him, were he to bring a case.

In other words, Rush would be the one making a claim of falsehood, and he would have to prove it.
 
No, actually the burden of proof is on Rush; he must prove the statements are false, and the person who made them either knew they were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. As a public figure, the burden of proof on plaintiff Rush is even higher, if I remember correctly. But the burden lays would lie with him, were he to bring a case.

In other words, Rush would be the one making a claim of falsehood, and he would have to prove it.

That doesn't make sense. Because then in your case anyone can run around saying whatever they want about people, causing as much damage as possible, etc. You wouldn't face repercussions or show that your actions were just. The key to slander, what makes it hard to prove, is that you have to show that there has been negative impact (usually in some financial or business quarter). That's easy to see in this case. Then the charges of racism have to be addressed, are they true. Well at this point someone has to prove that what they said is true. These are civil not legal proceedings so it's not like it's the State prosecuting someone (in which case damage and falsehood of statement must be shown by the State). Those whom slandered him will have to defend what they say because they are the one's being sued.
 
That doesn't make sense. Because then in your case anyone can run around saying whatever they want about people, causing as much damage as possible, etc. .

Wow that sounds like what Limbaugh does on a daily basis.
 
Wow that sounds like what Limbaugh does on a daily basis.
Appears you don't listen to his show. Do you realize that his show is recorded and transcripted to include his sources?
 
Appears you don't listen to his show. Do you realize that his show is recorded and transcripted to include his sources?

Ive listened to his show and laughed my ass off.
 
Wow that sounds like what Limbaugh does on a daily basis.

Except his is political speech. That must be protected to the maximum. Slander and libel against the individual should be cautioned against.
 
That doesn't make sense. Because then in your case anyone can run around saying whatever they want about people, causing as much damage as possible, etc. You wouldn't face repercussions or show that your actions were just. The key to slander, what makes it hard to prove, is that you have to show that there has been negative impact (usually in some financial or business quarter). That's easy to see in this case. Then the charges of racism have to be addressed, are they true. Well at this point someone has to prove that what they said is true. These are civil not legal proceedings so it's not like it's the State prosecuting someone (in which case damage and falsehood of statement must be shown by the State). Those whom slandered him will have to defend what they say because they are the one's being sued.


It is actually the law in this country. From a NYT case from the 60s, related to reporting sivil rights cases, I believe.

Try a google, you'll find that the burden of proof is on the one bringing the suit, and the hurdle is higher for public figures than private figures.
 
It is actually the law in this country. From a NYT case from the 60s, related to reporting sivil rights cases, I believe.

Try a google, you'll find that the burden of proof is on the one bringing the suit, and the hurdle is higher for public figures than private figures.

Well alright, though I think in this case Rush has a very clear and easy win.
 
It is actually the law in this country. From a NYT case from the 60s, related to reporting sivil rights cases, I believe.

Try a google, you'll find that the burden of proof is on the one bringing the suit, and the hurdle is higher for public figures than private figures.

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.
 
I am gonna unsubscribe from this thread before my respect for liberals diminishes completely. But before I do, would anyone PLEASE point me to these so-called racist remarks in context.

Or has it just broken down into "Rush is a bad, bad man and deserves to be lied about and slandered"?
 
Sharpton, and Jackson are poverty pimps... They are not immune to the law either. They liable Limbaugh and get away with it, why? Because right now it is politically acceptable to lie about those who don't agree with you ideologically.

How sad.


j-mac

"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
 
Back
Top Bottom