• 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

Harshaw said:
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."
Click to expand...


The burden of proof for media reporting on public figures is quite high.
 
I find it very interesting that the right defends Rush, a simple entertainer, with the same veracity as they do Dick Cheney.
 
liblady said:
i still haven't seen or heard exactly what sharpton or jackson said. never the less, rush's partner dropped him.

i have every doubt that roger g. would have wanted rush as an owner anyway. the nfl doesn't need his controversy OR his money.
Click to expand...
Got a source to back this up?
 
jackalope said:
The burden of proof for media reporting on public figures is quite high.
Click to expand...

It's factually difficult to do, but that's different from a standard of proof.
 
Harshaw said:
It's factually difficult to do, but that's different from a standard of proof.
Click to expand...


Actually, as has been discussed in this thread, the actual burden of proof is higher on cases involving media reporting on public figures. It is lower on private citizens. With respect to public figures, malice must be proved, in addition to the statments being false, and the media company knowing it was false or having reckless disregard for the truth.

This higher burden of proof was imposed by the Supreme Court in a separate case than the one that imposed the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
 
jackalope said:
Actually, as has been discussed in this thread, the actual burden of proof is higher on cases involving media reporting on public figures. It is lower on private citizens. With respect to public figures, malice must be proved, in addition to the statments being false, and the media company knowing it was false or having reckless disregard for the truth.

This higher burden of proof was imposed by the Supreme Court in a separate case than the one that imposed the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Click to expand...

You keep seeming to be mixing up information.

You keep stating one thing that most have acknowledged true and trying to use that as acknowledgement that the other thing people don't agree with you on is true.

Yes, the standard of what they must show is higher....ie they must show intent, damage, etc.

However..

One, that has nothing to do with "reasonable doubt" or other sorts of standards of measured certainty in regards to proof

Two, just because it requires MORE things does not necessarily the standard for the amount of proof any individual item neds changes

Three, I've still seen zero evidence that Limbaugh must somehow concretely prove he never said something.
 
Zyphlin said:
You keep seeming to be mixing up information.

You keep stating one thing that most have acknowledged true and trying to use that as acknowledgement that the other thing people don't agree with you on is true.

Yes, the standard of what they must show is higher....ie they must show intent, damage, etc.

However..

One, that has nothing to do with "reasonable doubt" or other sorts of standards of measured certainty in regards to proof

Two, just because it requires MORE things does not necessarily the standard for the amount of proof any individual item neds changes

Three, I've still seen zero evidence that Limbaugh must somehow concretely prove he never said something.
Click to expand...


The quote to which I originally responded referred to burden of proof. Harshaw switched it up to standard of proof in his last post, but that was his mistake. The discussion, was about burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
Actually, as has been discussed in this thread, the actual burden of proof is higher on cases involving media reporting on public figures. It is lower on private citizens. With respect to public figures, malice must be proved, in addition to the statments being false, and the media company knowing it was false or having reckless disregard for the truth.

This higher burden of proof was imposed by the Supreme Court in a separate case than the one that imposed the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Click to expand...


I believe you have this in terms of several sources on the news repeating false accusations, and then when called on them, reverting to the meme of well, that may not be true, but he (Limbaugh) has said other things......

Yeah, like what? They (Sanchez/CNN) were busted telling a lie, then moved it to gross generalization that still was designed to smear.


j-mac
 
He used the wrong word, but his point was clear in context when he immedietely went to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and later to preponderance of evidence. It was clear he was talking about the standard of proof since he used two examples of such in his sentence but got the word wrong imho, as the use of BARD and POE made it clear that THAT was the thing he was refering to.
 
jackalope said:
The quote to which I originally responded referred to burden of proof. Harshaw switched it up to standard of proof in his last post, but that was his mistake. The discussion, was about burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Yes, I carelessly messed up the word, confusing "burden of proof" (who has to prove what) and "standard of proof" (the level of proof needed). Mea culpa. But the meaning was plain. :roll:

Why do you need to pick a fight with almost everything I say? You misused "burden of proof" yourself, but you note I didn't jump down your throat about it.
 
Redress said:
The reason why I don't feel bad for Rush, and I have stated this, is he is politically divisive and makes a living saying outrageous things, which there is nothing wrong with. However, there will be repercussions from being outrageous and divisive, and crying about it won't do any good. There is nothing wrong with me saying "Rush is an asshole and I will laugh at any bad thing that happens to him", and compared to some things said against lefties(oh, the selective outrage of you again), it's pretty mild.
Click to expand...

The reason I defend Rush is because while one is free to be as divisive as they want, I don't think that provides legitimate grounds to commit crimes against him.
 
Zyphlin said:
He used the wrong word, but his point was clear in context when he immedietely went to "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and later to preponderance of evidence. It was clear he was talking about the standard of proof since he used two examples of such in his sentence but got the word wrong imho, as the use of BARD and POE made it clear that THAT was the thing he was refering to.
Click to expand...


He was mixing them up and I chose not to highlight it. The only differences in standards of proof are between civil and criminal cases; what is different in this case is burden of proof.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, I carelessly messed up the word, confusing "burden of proof" (who has to prove what) and "standard of proof" (the level of proof needed). Mea culpa. But the meaning was plain. :roll:

Why do you need to pick a fight with almost everything I say? You misused "burden of proof" yourself, but you note I didn't jump down your throat about it.
Click to expand...


I was actually trying to be polite and not highlight the mistake. Civil and criminal cases have different standards; what is particular to this case is burden of proof.


Actually, the standard in most civil cases is the middle standard, and the standard in criminal cases is the higher standard, but all three can be in criminal cases, and the lower two can be in civil and administrative cases, I think:

http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/08/standards-of-proof/


But again, what is particular to this case, is burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The reason I defend Rush is because while one is free to be as divisive as they want, I don't think that provides legitimate grounds to commit crimes against him.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. But don't let that outrage show in Rush's case or it's just selective. :roll:
 
jackalope said:
He was mixing them up and I chose not to highlight it. The only differences in standards of proof are between civil and criminal cases; what is different in this case is burden of proof.
Click to expand...

No, actually, different civil cases can have different standards of proof; criminal cases are beyond a reasonable doubt.

But since you're jumping on me, I'll correct you -- you said the "burden of proof" was "high," which doesn't make sense unless you yourself meant "standard of proof." So, don't throw stones. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
No, actually, different civil cases can have different standards of proof; criminal cases are beyond a reasonable doubt.

But since you're jumping on me, I'll correct you -- you said the "burden of proof" was "high," which doesn't make sense unless you yourself meant "standard of proof." So, don't throw stones. :roll:
Click to expand...


I did not mix up my terms, I used burden of proof with the tests to be met. You did mix up your terms, so focusing on the relevant one was not a mistake on my part.
 
Harshaw said:
No, actually, different civil cases can have different standards of proof; criminal cases are beyond a reasonable doubt.

But since you're jumping on me, I'll correct you -- you said the "burden of proof" was "high," which doesn't make sense unless you yourself meant "standard of proof." So, don't throw stones. :roll:
Click to expand...


Actually, that's wrong too. All three levels can be used in a criminal case (but the higher is usual). However, I did already edit my post to correct the civil is this and criminal is that comment.
 
jackalope said:
I did not mix up my terms, I used burden of proof with the tests to be met.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I mentioned the tests to be met, too:

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...


And you said here:

jackalope said:
The burden of proof for media reporting on public figures is quite high.
Click to expand...

Now, I would have been inclined to let this go and assume you meant what I was referring to, the need to show actual malice, but since you're being so ridiculous concerning what I said (as usual), I'll make an issue of it.

If you were referring to the standard of proof, then you used the wrong word. If you were referring to the duty to show malice, then the point was meaningless, because I had already said it. What I'm guessing, then, is that -- once again -- you simply didn't read what I wrote.

Either way, it doesn't speak especially well of you.

(And you picked this fight. I, at least, admitted to my own mistake.)
 
jackalope said:
Actually, that's wrong too. All three levels can be used in a criminal case (but the higher is usual).
Click to expand...

There may be, in a state here or there, for very minor crimes with very low penalties, for which there is a lower burden, but for nearly every criminal case, it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and any exceptions are extremely few, to the point of not even being worth mentioning.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, and I mentioned the tests to be met, too:




And you said here:



Now, I would have been inclined to let this go and assume you meant what I was referring to, the need to show actual malice, but since you're being so ridiculous concerning what I said (as usual), I'll make an issue of it.

If you were referring to the standard of proof, then you used the wrong word. If you were referring to the duty to show malice, then the point was meaningless, because I had already said it. What I'm guessing, then, is that -- once again -- you simply didn't read what I wrote.

Either way, it doesn't speak especially well of you.

(And you picked this fight. I, at least, admitted to my own mistake.)
Click to expand...
At no point was I referring to standard of proof, but burden of proof. It was the right word, and the characterization is accurate. The Supreme Court intended for the burden of proof for libel cases brought by public figures against media companies to be high. If you research it, that is what is discussed the high burden of proof on the plaintiff. The only thing that differentiates this case from a case involving a private person with regard to proof is burden of proof.
 
Harshaw said:
There may be, in a state here or there, for very minor crimes with very low penalties, for which there is a lower burden, but for nearly every criminal case, it is beyond a reasonable doubt, and any exceptions are extremely few, to the point of not even being worth mentioning.
Click to expand...


Tell ya what, next time I'll just go straight for the throat and point out silly inconsistencies and inaccuracies, rather than attempt to move on to what is relevant. :2wave:
 
jackalope said:
At no point was I referring to standard of proof, but burden of proof. It was the right word, and the characterization is accurate. The Supreme Court intended for the burden of proof for libel cases brought by public figures against media companies to be high. If you research it, that is what is discussed the high burden of proof on the plaintiff. The only thing that differentiates this case from a case involving a private person with regard to proof is burden of proof.
Click to expand...

OK, then it was a meaningless point, because I had already said it, and you apparently didn't bother to read it, which wouldn't be the first time. Fine.
 
jackalope said:
Tell ya what, next time I'll just go straight for the throat and point out silly inconsistencies and inaccuracies
Click to expand...

Which is what you did.

rather than attempt to move on to what is relevant. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yeah, get in digs and then say "let's move on." Typical. Why do I ever even bother with you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom