“I’m Going To Drag Your Asses Into Federal Court... Slander? How can that be?

[Madeline]

I'm sure he didn't issue this warning before speaking to his attorney. I think this will be interesting to play out in court. Malicious is accusing someone of being an accessory to murder with having evidence to back it up. First up sheriff pundig.

Who has been accused of -- or arrested as -- an accessory to murder? To be guilty of this, someone would have had to aided the shooter, before or after the fact....like by driving him to scene, knowing what he planned to do.

Dial it back, Willow.

 

[goldcatt]

Mr. Levin does not seem to understand Federal Court jurisdiction. Funner as it might be to litigate where the walls are paneled in walnut, his case will have to filed in state court.

Where it will promptly be dismissed. There is no "statement of fact", only opinion involved here....and he's a public figure, who would never be able to show his defendants knew they were incorrect but nonetheless spoke with actual malice.

This is a blowhard, blowing hard.

He could most likely sue on State grounds in Federal court under diversity jurisdiction. I'm sure he'd ask for enough cash to make it worth his while.

No, there's nothing here. CG has a point with some of the rhetoric against the right, but this kind of thing won't stick against the left either. Free speech....ugly as it can be sometimes, we all have it.

Surely you can't create diversity merely by puffing up your damages request?

How much do you think it's worth to him, seriously?

Put it this way, Hustler was a defamation case, right? How much did Jerry Falwell sue for? I'd have to put up the case to remember.

But I'm sure when you add up all the compensatories you'd be over the limit for diversity jurisdiction. All that mental anguish can go a long way, and the current limit is only 75 grand:

United States Code: Title 28,1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Revere]

Mark Levin doesn't need the money. Don't you think he has bigger and better things to prove with this?

 

[Madeline]

He could most likely sue on State grounds in Federal court under diversity jurisdiction. I'm sure he'd ask for enough cash to make it worth his while.

No, there's nothing here. CG has a point with some of the rhetoric against the right, but this kind of thing won't stick against the left either. Free speech....ugly as it can be sometimes, we all have it.

Surely you can't create diversity merely by puffing up your damages request?

How much do you think it's worth to him, seriously?

Put it this way, Hustler was a defamation case, right? How much did Jerry Falwell sue for? I'd have to put up the case to remember.

But I'm sure when you add up all the compensatories you'd be over the limit for diversity jurisdiction. All that mental anguish can go a long way, and the current limit is only 75 grand:

United States Code: Title 28,1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs | LII / Legal Information Institute

Well then, I sit here corrected. It seems he can go to federal court to get dismissed.

Thankies, mah more articulate sista!

 

[Wry Catcher]

(Mediaite)-Radio host Mark Levin is fed up with claims that heated political rhetoric of the sort found on talk radio shows like his are in some way to blame for the shooting in Arizona that left six dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords injured.
And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shutlz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm (“you little weasel”) to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner’s rampage.
“I don’t care if they’re bloggers,” Levin announced. “I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal.”
“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”


​

I think it's a great idea. I've listened to Levin on occassion as well as Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. If hyperbole, half-truths, and innuendo are to be considered defamation then talk radio and newcasters will eventually tone down the rhetoric.
Better yet, the unintended consequence of Levin's threat may result in a return to a fairness doctrine. Wouldn't that be a hoot and ironic.

 

[Madeline]

Mark Levin doesn't need the money. Don't you think he has bigger and better things to prove with this?

I think it might be good for us if, if we had some venue we could test this in and get a judgment, Revere. It's actually kinda a shame there isn't.

Mayhaps there should be some sort of Journalism Court?

 

[Revere]

(Mediaite)-Radio host Mark Levin is fed up with claims that heated political rhetoric of the sort found on talk radio shows like his are in some way to blame for the shooting in Arizona that left six dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords injured.
And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shutlz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm (“you little weasel”) to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner’s rampage.
“I don’t care if they’re bloggers,” Levin announced. “I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal.”
“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”


​

I think it's a great idea. I've listened to Levin on occassion as well as Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. If hyperbole, half-truths, and innuendo are to be considered defamation then talk radio and newcasters will eventually tone down the rhetoric.
Better yet, the unintended consequence of Levin's threat may result in a return to a fairness doctrine. Wouldn't that be a hoot and ironic.

Suing for slander will result in the government shutting up Mark Levin?

 

[Revere]

Mark Levin doesn't need the money. Don't you think he has bigger and better things to prove with this?

I think it might be good for us if, if we had some venue we could test this in and get a judgment, Revere. It's actually kinda a shame there isn't.

Mayhaps there should be some sort of Journalism Court?

Slander is an established concept, provable in a court of law.

 

[Capitalist]

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky pps.127-134)

 

[bodecea]

(Mediaite)-Radio host Mark Levin is fed up with claims that heated political rhetoric of the sort found on talk radio shows like his are in some way to blame for the shooting in Arizona that left six dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords injured.
And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shutlz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm (“you little weasel”) to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner’s rampage.
“I don’t care if they’re bloggers,” Levin announced. “I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal.”
“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”


​

He should go for it.

 

[goldcatt]

Mark Levin doesn't need the money. Don't you think he has bigger and better things to prove with this?

He wants to go to Federal court with this, he has to meet jurisdictional standards. There are other considerations as well, if you consider the actual purpose of the litigation as far as the courts are concerned. He has to prove harm to meet standing requirements, and harms must be addressed in the manner in which the court can compensate. That's cash. You think if he alleges loss of revenue as a result of the harm he's going to be taken seriously if he doesn't prove an amount and ask for compensation of that revenue? He most likely can't claim mental or emotional harm without asking for P&S damages, in most cases it's a legal impossibility. It's all part of looking at the possibility of a case going forward as he describes.

How much is a completely valid question. He ain't gonna get walnut if he asks for an equitable remedy now, is he?

 

[Ravi]

(Mediaite)-Radio host Mark Levin is fed up with claims that heated political rhetoric of the sort found on talk radio shows like his are in some way to blame for the shooting in Arizona that left six dead and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords injured.
And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shutlz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm (“you little weasel”) to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner’s rampage.
“I don’t care if they’re bloggers,” Levin announced. “I don’t care if they’re television hosts, I don’t care if they’re radio hosts. I’m going to drag your ass into federal court. Oh, you’ll have due process. It’ll all be nice and legal.”
“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”


​

Another rightwinger that supports the Fairness Doctrine. Funny stuff!

 

[bodecea]

Maybe we should ask our resident lawyer, Liability about the possibilities that this case is viable.

 

[Liability]

Mark Levin is a laughing stock.

If self-proclaimed conservatives who tend to swear by, especially in the recent 2 years, freedom of speech, supports that man with this outlandish and laughable, at best, claim, then you will be proving yourself to be hypocrites of the first order.

Malcolm ExLax, as he usually does, just ^ reconfirmed that he doesn't have the first damn clue about the First Amendment.

Helpful hint for ignorant poseurs like Malcolm ExLax: there is not one thing in the slightest bit contradictory between vital, healthy and fulsome support of the First Amendment on the one hand and a perfectly valid reliance on libel and slander laws on the other hand.

They are NOT inherently antithetical, you schmuck.

Whether or not Mr. Levin has any kind of logical legal case to make in such a proposed civil suit against loathsome ass-wipes like Chrissy Mathews is another story. It is within the bounds of reason to argue that Mr. Levin's threat amounts to just so much hot air in this case. Maybe. Maybe not.

But to go from that to the drivel you spew, you ignoramous, that a libel/slander suit is somehow unsupportable when filed by folks who cherish the Constitution (referring for the moment to the First Amendment) is absurd.Dopes like you don't understand what the First Amendment serves to protect, and from whom.

 

[goldcatt]

Mark Levin doesn't need the money. Don't you think he has bigger and better things to prove with this?

I think it might be good for us if, if we had some venue we could test this in and get a judgment, Revere. It's actually kinda a shame there isn't.

Mayhaps there should be some sort of Journalism Court?

A self-policing industry body of some sort, maybe? Talking Head v. Talking Head in a cage match to the censure?

Now THAT would be entertaining. And potentially even useful.

 

[Madeline]

The law of lander and libel is a limitation on free speech, Liability.

And it took me like five minutes to figure out who "Malcolm ExLax" was supposed to be. Mayhaps make your nicknames a tad more easy to understand?

 

[Liability]

Maybe we should ask our resident lawyer, Liability about the possibilities that this case is viable.

There are several other lawyers on the Board, too.

As for my preliminary response, I personally don't see how the nonsense spewed by schmucks like Chrissy Matthews and his fellow dishonest liberal propagandists amounts to anything civilly actionable. Saying something which is dishonest political hyperbole -- the idiocy spewed by Chris Matthews, as a prime example -- seems (at first blush, at least) to fall under a protected political opinion classification.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any formal written civil complaint yet from Mr. Levin, either. It is certainly possible that he has a legal "theory" which I have not considered. So, until I see such a summons and complaint, I lean toward taking a wait and see attitude.

 

[Liability]

The law of lander and libel is a limitation on free speech, Liability.

And it took me like five minutes to figure out who "Malcolm ExLax" was supposed to be. Mayhaps make your nicknames a tad more easy to understand?

That you have not the first clue as to what the First Amendment protects -- and from who -- does not surprise me.

I don't care, by the way, if you know who Malcolm ExLax refers to. The schmuck who uses the AMlcolm ExLax avie knows.

 

[bodecea]

Maybe we should ask our resident lawyer, Liability about the possibilities that this case is viable.

There are several other lawyers on the Board, too.

As for my preliminary response, I personally don't see how the nonsense spewed by schmucks like Chrissy Matthews and his fellow dishonest liberal propagandists amounts to anything civilly actionable. Saying something which is dishonest political hyperbole -- the idiocy spewed by Chris Matthews, as a prime example -- seems (at first blush, at least) to fall under a protected political opinion classification.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any formal written civil complaint yet from Mr. Levin, either. It is certainly possible that he has a legal "theory" which I have not considered. So, until I see such a summons and complaint, I lean toward taking a wait and see attitude.

I don't know who the other lawyers are.

 

[Liability]

Maybe we should ask our resident lawyer, Liability about the possibilities that this case is viable.

There are several other lawyers on the Board, too.

As for my preliminary response, I personally don't see how the nonsense spewed by schmucks like Chrissy Matthews and his fellow dishonest liberal propagandists amounts to anything civilly actionable. Saying something which is dishonest political hyperbole -- the idiocy spewed by Chris Matthews, as a prime example -- seems (at first blush, at least) to fall under a protected political opinion classification.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any formal written civil complaint yet from Mr. Levin, either. It is certainly possible that he has a legal "theory" which I have not considered. So, until I see such a summons and complaint, I lean toward taking a wait and see attitude.

I don't know who the other lawyers are.

Well, I'm not gonna out them -- but I'll drop a clue. One other (at least) has already posted here.