• 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!

Glenn Beck must face Saudi's lawsuit over Boston Marathon bombing

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,854
Reaction score
8,331
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This will be an interesting court room/behind the scenes battle. Beck, like Mark Steyn, is saying his freedom of speech rights trump the rights of a person who has been defamed

Glenn Beck must face Saudi's lawsuit over Boston Marathon bombing

(Reuters) - The conservative commentator Glenn Beck failed to persuade a federal judge to dismiss a defamation lawsuit by a Saudi Arabian student who Beck repeatedly accused of involvement in and being the "money man" behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston on Tuesday said Abdulrahman Alharbi's allegations "easily permit an inference" that Beck, his company The Blaze Inc, and a distributor of his radio show were negligent toward him over Beck's comments.

Alharbi, 21, had been a spectator near the marathon's finish line on April 15, 2013, suffering minor injuries when two homemade pressure-cooker bombs ripped through the crowd. He was later mentioned in news reports as federal authorities briefly investigated him, and quickly concluded he had no involvement.

The lawsuit claimed that Beck made repeated false statements about Alharbi on his radio show, including that he helped fund the bombing, even after the probe was dropped.
Click to expand...

The case is Alharbi v. Beck et al, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 14-11550.
 
Interesting. I hadn't heard of this, and would be interested in checking into the allegations, and seeing the outcome. Thanks for the info and link.
 
Somerville said:
This will be an interesting court room/behind the scenes battle. Beck, like Mark Steyn, is saying his freedom of speech rights trump the rights of a person who has been defamed



The case is Alharbi v. Beck et al, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 14-11550.
Click to expand...

I hope this young man wins this landmark lawsuit. It's time the media had to account for ruining lives.
 
Somerville said:
This will be an interesting court room/behind the scenes battle. Beck, like Mark Steyn, is saying his freedom of speech rights trump the rights of a person who has been defamed



The case is Alharbi v. Beck et al, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 14-11550.
Click to expand...

Good. Raving liberals in the media have to learn that they can't just go around slandering people.
 
Somerville said:
This will be an interesting court room/behind the scenes battle. Beck, like Mark Steyn, is saying his freedom of speech rights trump the rights of a person who has been defamed



The case is Alharbi v. Beck et al, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 14-11550.
Click to expand...

If all that is true, Beck is culpable.

Also free speech does not overrule defamation. Slander and libel are illegal.
 
Somerville said:
NEWS FLASH!! Glenn Beck and Mark Steyn are now "raving liberals"
Click to expand...

No, but the raving liberals publishing information about the Ferguson officer's marriage, address, etc? They'd have a party if he was found and murdered.
 
Erod said:
No, but the raving liberals publishing information about the Ferguson officer's marriage, address, etc? They'd have a party if he was found and murdered.
Click to expand...

How does this apply to the topic on hand?
 
Paleocon said:
Beck has self-identified as a classical liberal.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, you mean what conservatives used to be closer to till they sold out their ideology to government power and wealth.
 
Ikari said:
Ahhh, you mean what conservatives used to be closer to till they sold out their ideology to government power and wealth.
Click to expand...

No, I mean the original form of liberalism fought against by non-pseudo conservatives.
 
Glenn Beck would deserve punishment if all is true.


Paleocon said:
No, I mean the original form of liberalism fought against by non-pseudo conservatives.
Click to expand...

To a large extent, yes. However, I grow curious of your adoption of the 'paleocon' name, given it has primarily been in the domain of those more willing to play within the realm of liberalism than what you are describing yourself as.
 
Fiddytree said:
I grow curious of your adoption of the 'paleocon' name, given it has primarily been in the domain of those more willing to play within the realm of liberalism than what you are describing yourself as.
Click to expand...

It is etymologically representative of the type of conservative I am (the old type of conservative, thus paleo). I am aware that most paleocons are Burkeans, nonetheless the term is not exclusively Burkean, thus it is an accurate representation of myself. Although I do now prefer to use the term Reactionary to describe my political views.

Also note that the subject of the post, Glenn Beck, is neither a Reactionary nor a Burkean.
 
Paleocon said:
Beck has self-identified as a classical liberal.
Click to expand...

Listen, of all the people in this thread, you are probably the one whose beliefs are closest to Beck's.
 
I think the guy has a good case against Beck. I expect the settlement would be somewhere in the neighborhood of what Richard Jewell got from NBC when Tom Brokaw went on the air and said that the FBI was close to arresting Jewell for the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
 
MaggieD said:
I hope this young man wins this landmark lawsuit. It's time the media had to account for ruining lives.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a landmark case. This happens all the time. The media always has a way of getting out ahead of the facts. See Ferguson.
 
Deuce said:
Listen, of all the people in this thread, you are probably the one whose beliefs are closest to Beck's.
Click to expand...

Beck believes the state should have no official religion, that the state should recognize sodomous civil unions, that Ayn Rand was a reasonable person, that child-murder should be legal is the father is a rapist, along with a host of other things liberal absurdities.
 
Paleocon said:
Beck believes the state should have no official religion, that the state should recognize sodomous civil unions, that Ayn Rand was a reasonable person, that child-murder should be legal is the father is a rapist, along with a host of other things liberal absurdities.
Click to expand...

Wait, you think states should have official religions? Sodomous civil unions? What the hell Paleo?
 
Somerville said:
This will be an interesting court room/behind the scenes battle. Beck, like Mark Steyn, is saying his freedom of speech rights trump the rights of a person who has been defamed



The case is Alharbi v. Beck et al, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 14-11550.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Beck was the ONLY one to he reporting this? Anc clearly there was some interestin him if the authorities investigated him. I don't get what this is about but a timeline would probably suit me better.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Wait, you think states should have official religions? Sodomous civil unions? What the hell Paleo?
Click to expand...

That X is the fundamental truth of humanity logically entails that X should be supported by human authorities.

Glenn Beck supports gay civil unions.
 
Paleocon said:
That X is the fundamental truth of humanity logically entails that X should be supported by human authorities.

Glenn Beck supports gay civil unions.
Click to expand...

People can choose where they want to join a faith, you're talking about forcing religious ideas on those who do not believe as you do. That's a bit arrogant, not to mention wrong and absolutely against what what the settlers who came to this country, who by the way fled another oppressive religion.

And why does it matter to you if gays want to be together? What's with the hate?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
People can choose where they want to join a faith, you're talking about forcing religious ideas on those who do not believe as you do. That's a bit arrogant, not to mention wrong and absolutely against what what the settlers who came to this country, who by the way fled another oppressive religion.

And why does it matter to you if gays want to be together? What's with the hate?
Click to expand...

1. I find it funny when liberals tell me what I just said, when I in fact said no such thing. Please tell me where I said anything about forcing people to convert.

2. That the pilgrims did something does not make it right.

3. Even though it doesn't affect the rightness of it, I'll point out that the pilgrims founded an even more religiously authoritarian state.

It's immoral.
 
Paleocon said:
1. I find it funny when liberals tell me what I just said, when I in fact said no such thing. Please tell me where I said anything about forcing people to convert.

2. That the pilgrims did something does not make it right.

3. Even though it doesn't affect the rightness of it, I'll point out that the pilgrims founded an even more religiously authoritarian state.

It's immoral.
Click to expand...

I never said you are forcing people to "convert", I said that you a forcing "religious ideas" on those who do not believe. The difference is that, while you may not be forcing them into the pews on Sunday morning, but making it a religious state, what you are doing are forcing them to live by laws that are purely religious in nature. The only reason, someone would pass a law to deny homosexuals the ability to marry is purely on religious grounds. There's no threat to you or your families livelihood there. It's not hurting anyone for two people to say they love you and want to be with each for the rest of their lives.

Just as it is wrong when some ME country wants to stone women for infidelity, or not having their face covered in public, it's wrong for a Christian nation to deny gays the ability to marry based on nothing but religious dogma.
 
Erod said:
No, but the raving liberals publishing information about the Ferguson officer's marriage, address, etc? They'd have a party if he was found and murdered.
Click to expand...

You understand, of course, what libel is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom