• 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!

Rush Limbaugh Threatens To Sue Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Rush Limbaugh Threatens To Sue DCCC | The Daily Caller

The DCCC “has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program” according to the GlaserWeil law firm’s letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. “Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes.’”

“Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape” the DCCC stated in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh mocked Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines. (RELATED: Democrats Attack Rush Limbaugh On Way To November Loss)

Limbaugh’s team said that the DCCC’s campaign against Limbaugh provides grounds for a defamation case, based on legal precedent.

Politics aside, does he have a case?
 

The way I understand the law, a political candidate or their affiliated organization (like the DCCC or the RCCC) can say about anything they want about an opposing candidate without recourse. However, sometimes that tactic transcends to non-political candidate individuals - in this case Rush Limbaugh.

If the DCCC's comments are inaccurate, then IMHO, yes... he has a case against them. And, if so, he should sue their pants off.
 
The way I understand the law, a political candidate or their affiliated organization (like the DCCC or the RCCC) can say about anything they want about an opposing candidate without recourse. However, sometimes that tactic transcends to non-political candidate individuals - in this case Rush Limbaugh.

If the DCCC's comments are inaccurate, then IMHO, yes... he has a case against them. And, if so, he should sue their pants off.

What law are you referring to?
 
Not much.

By being ambiguous in his statement, He left himself closed to any criticism in the way he framed his idea as a question.

Likewise he left himself open to other's conjecture of his true meaning by being ambiguous.

I disagree. Rush was not a political candidate, so he is not fair game in that manner. You can't take an "ambiguous" statement, then state it as fact in the manner you wish.

Rush is a celebrity and political pundit, but he is not an elected public servant.
 
The way I understand the law, a political candidate or their affiliated organization (like the DCCC or the RCCC) can say about anything they want about an opposing candidate without recourse. However, sometimes that tactic transcends to non-political candidate individuals - in this case Rush Limbaugh.

If the DCCC's comments are inaccurate, then IMHO, yes... he has a case against them. And, if so, he should sue their pants off.

You cannot slander another person, period. So long as what they are saying is true, they can certainly say what they want, but I think in this case, they've overstepped the line and accused him of something that they cannot show is factually true. Now I think Limbaugh is an ass but even asses can get slandered.
 


According to the brief outline his legal team provided, it would seem there is a valid case. Precedent has been set in similar cases. It's interesting how they are suggesting advertisers where harmed by the actions the DCCC took to paint a rather disgusting lie.

I hope RL is willing to risk the legal cost to carry this through. The claim the DCCC made is outrageous and vile.
 
You cannot slander another person, period. So long as what they are saying is true, they can certainly say what they want, but I think in this case, they've overstepped the line and accused him of something that they cannot show is factually true. Now I think Limbaugh is an ass but even asses can get slandered.




"In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”"
 
I disagree. Rush was not a political candidate, so he is not fair game in that manner. You can't take an "ambiguous" statement, then state it as fact in the manner you wish.

Rush is a celebrity and political pundit, but he is not an elected public servant.

I never claimed he was a political candidate. He is a public figure.
 
You cannot slander another person, period. So long as what they are saying is true, they can certainly say what they want, but I think in this case, they've overstepped the line and accused him of something that they cannot show is factually true. Now I think Limbaugh is an ass but even asses can get slandered.

You may want to look at the laws covering national elections and what is stated by a politician on both the House and Senate floor. Politicians and candidates for federal office have a certain level of immunity from tort laws. Especially while speaking on the floor of either house of Congress. But, it also applies to political advertisements regarding a political opponent.

That's why we see Truth Meters and the like. If they could be sued by other candidates or politicians, there would be no need for Truth Meters.

The reason for the immunity, is to keep political debate from being quashed by suit after suit for what a politician says.
 

"Politics aside"? You're joking right? I don't think that's possible with someone like Rush. Those who dislike him will say he has no case, and those who like him will say he does.

I will say that it is extremely difficult for a public figure to win any kind of libel or defamation suit.
 
"In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”"

That is why I brought up the ambiguity of Rush's statement--formed as a question.
 
That is why I brought up the ambiguity of Rush's statement--formed as a question.


Full context. There was nothing ambiguous about it:


""Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.' How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out 'why'... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?"
 
I never claimed he was a political candidate. He is a public figure.

Public figures are protected in this respect however. You can call him whatever name you want and build a show around it, but you can't claim that he said something he didn't say in a political ad, especially if he's not running for anything.
 
Public figures are protected in this respect however. You can call him whatever name you want and build a show around it, but you can't claim that he said something he didn't say in a political ad, especially if he's not running for anything.

Rush's use of the phrase "no means yes" probably puts this soundly in the Gray Area.

But I'm not a lawyer.
 
Full context. There was nothing ambiguous about it:


""Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.' How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out 'why'... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?"

This is what I and most likely everyone else is referring to.

You see that little ambiguous...not quite a statement...asked as a question...statement.
 
Full context. There was nothing ambiguous about it:


""Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.' How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given. See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out 'why'... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?"

How can anyone, in good conscious, extract from that comment what the DNCC is claiming Rush said, and look in the mirror? They might as well have called him a rapist.
 
This is what I and most likely everyone else is referring to.

You see that little ambiguous...not quite a statement...asked as a question...statement.



you have to take the whole statement, no where did he advocate rape, and by removing the context you change the meaning.
 
This is what I and most likely everyone else is referring to.

You see that little ambiguous...not quite a statement...asked as a question...statement.

And from that, you can honestly translate it as he believes rape should be tolerated?

Good gawd.
 
I have read Limbaugh's comments with context (which does not significantly change the meaning), and my view is that whether his comments condone rape is a matter of opinion. The comments can reasonably be taken to jusify activities that are arguably a form of rape. Much of the disputes with this issue are over where to draw the line as to when an activity becomes rape. Limbaugh's opinion differs from many other people's opinion. Those people can reasonably say that Limbaugh condones rape as they define it, and quite possibly as the law would currently define it. Limbaugh's point is that a perceptive person can tell whether "no" really means "no." The counter argument is that too often some people are not that perceptive (or don't care) and commit rapes.

Because the question as to whether Limbaugh's comments "condone rape" is so subjective, in my opinion, it is not actionable libel or slander. Case dismissed at preliminary hearing.
 
Last edited:
you have to take the whole statement, no where did he advocate rape, and by removing the context you change the meaning.

I'm not the lawyer on the case...and I'm not going to invest time and energy to read every word Rush said on the issue.

That is my free, 1 minute take on the issue. I'm not that invested in Rush's legal problems.
 
ST. PAUL — Jesse Ventura, the wrestler-turned-politician-turned-television-host, has defied the odds before. More than a decade and a half ago, almost no one thought that a feather boa-wearing former professional wrestler could become the governor of Minnesota. In Mr. Ventura’s latest turn in the spotlight, some people questioned whether he could prevail in a claim that he had been defamed in a best-selling book, given the relatively high legal standard in such cases for public figures — and given Mr. Ventura’s lifetime of vivid, blunt and provocative pronouncements.

Jesse Ventura, the former Minnesota governor, brought a defamation suit over a book by an ex-member of the Navy SEALs.

Gov. Jesse Ventura in St. Paul on Tuesday, the first day of jury selection in his defamation lawsuit against the estate of Chris Kyle, who wrote the book “American Sniper.”Ex-Governor, Suing Over Book, Is Back in Minnesota’s Spotlight JULY 8, 2014

Yet on Tuesday, a jury sided with Mr. Ventura, finding that he had been defamed, calling for an award of more than $1.8 million and offering vindication to the former governor, 63, whose old swagger seemed somewhat diminished during three tense weeks in court here. At times, the proceedings felt less like an examination of a book by a former member of the Navy SEALs than a retrospective of Mr. Ventura’s history of colorful comments, his reputation, his life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/us/jesse-ventura-chris-kyle-navy-seal-book-lawsuit.html?_r=0

public figures can win defamation lawsuits

it happens all the time

this case....who knows.......
 
And from that, you can honestly translate it as he believes rape should be tolerated?

Good gawd.

It is like you did not even read what I posted. Go back and read what I posted. I made no investment in what Rush tolerates.
 
Back
Top Bottom