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

[MarcATL]

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

So why is he doing it then?

 

[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.

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

I'd suggest your use of hyperbole is disengenuous, but for the fact you have no idea what hyperbole means or how the fairness doctirne actually worked. Have you ever considered watching Seasame Street instead of posting here?
No, of course not! It's broadcast on PBS and must therefore be a communist plot.

 

[goldcatt]

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

So why is he doing it then?

Because he's pissed. Offended. Outraged. Or, worst case, he has no intentions of actually doing it and is riling up his audience. I'm not in his head, but those are the two most obvious potential answers. Are you an optimist or a cynic?

I don't actually think it's about money either, but if he tries to sue especially in Federal court he'll have to ask for it. Otherwise it won't meet jurisdictional requirements and just as important, won't be credible.

 

[Liability]

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

So why is he doing it then?

To teach the assholes like Chrissy Matthews a little responsibility, perhaps.

Mark Levin may not need the money. He makes far more than Chrissy Matthews. But maybe that's the point. It's not that Mark needs it. It's that Chrissy can ill-afford to be made to give it up.

But again, I don't expect that Mark Levin will follow through on this. Calmer heads will likely prevail.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

You feel better about yourself now?

 

[MarcATL]

To teach the assholes like Chrissy Matthews a little responsibility, perhaps.

Mark Levin may not need the money. He makes far more than Chrissy Matthews. But maybe that's the point. It's not that Mark needs it. It's that Chrissy can ill-afford to be made to give it up.

But again, I don't expect that Mark Levin will follow through on this. Calmer heads will likely prevail.

Responsibility and Mark Levin....!?!?!?



Do you see why that man is a laughing stock?

"Responsibility"

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[Madeline]

Isn't Mark Levin the one who said that Muslims worship a "monkey God"?

 

[Two Thumbs]

(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.”


​

Good for him. Slander is against the law and not protected free speech.

 

[Liability]

Isn't Mark Levin the one who said that Muslims worship a "monkey God"?

Link it.

But you won't.

You can't.

Mark WILLIAMS is not Mark LEVIN. http://koolnews.wordpress.com/2010/...rship-a-monkey-god-blasts-ground-zero-mosque/

 

[Ravi]

Has anyone else noticed how Liarbility always feminizes males he doesn't agree with?

 

[goldcatt]

To teach the assholes like Chrissy Matthews a little responsibility, perhaps.

Mark Levin may not need the money. He makes far more than Chrissy Matthews. But maybe that's the point. It's not that Mark needs it. It's that Chrissy can ill-afford to be made to give it up.

But again, I don't expect that Mark Levin will follow through on this. Calmer heads will likely prevail.

Responsibility and Mark Levin....!?!?!?



Do you see why that man is a laughing stock?

"Responsibility"

ROTFLMAO!!!

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

 

[Liability]

To teach the assholes like Chrissy Matthews a little responsibility, perhaps.

Mark Levin may not need the money. He makes far more than Chrissy Matthews. But maybe that's the point. It's not that Mark needs it. It's that Chrissy can ill-afford to be made to give it up.

But again, I don't expect that Mark Levin will follow through on this. Calmer heads will likely prevail.

Responsibility and Mark Levin....!?!?!?



Do you see why that man is a laughing stock?

"Responsibility"

ROTFLMAO!!!

No no, Malcolm ExLax. YOU are the laughingstock.

Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar. He is a VERY intelligent and damned articulate proponent of principled political philosophy.

He, unlike you and your heros, has integrity and credibility and a massive audience for those reasons.

You are a piss-poor example of modern American liberoidalism with a very tiny voice deserving of your stature. You drown in the shallows of intellectualism.

 

[Liability]

Has anyone else noticed how Liarbility always feminizes males he doesn't agree with?

No honest person COULD notice any such thing, since it's untrue. Huh. Imagine that. Another lie from Raving Dishonesty.

I do note how dishonest you always are, however. Well, almost always. But for one who loves to bandy about the "liar" term, you sure are hostile to the truth, you filthy diseased schmuck.

 

[MarcATL]

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

I believe he wouldn't dare WASTE his money on such frivolousness, however, I wonder...have you actually listened to his show?

He spews hate non-stop. His entire shtick is violent rhetoric.

 

[Liability]

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

I believe he wouldn't dare WASTE his money on such frivolousness, however, I wonder...have you actually listened to his show?

He spews hate non-stop. His entire shtick is violent rhetoric.

^ Another outright deliberate lie from a sterling example of "liberal" dishonesty.

Malcolm ExLax is another one who detests honesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To teach the assholes like Chrissy Matthews a little responsibility, perhaps.

Mark Levin may not need the money. He makes far more than Chrissy Matthews. But maybe that's the point. It's not that Mark needs it. It's that Chrissy can ill-afford to be made to give it up.

But again, I don't expect that Mark Levin will follow through on this. Calmer heads will likely prevail.

Responsibility and Mark Levin....!?!?!?



Do you see why that man is a laughing stock?

"Responsibility"

ROTFLMAO!!!

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

Are you sure statements of opinion are not defamation? Maybe in a criminal matter, but I can't see how a statement such as, "your neighbor John Doe is a child molester" to other neighbors is not defamation, in some cases.

 

[goldcatt]

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

I believe he wouldn't dare WASTE his money on such frivolousness, however, I wonder...have you actually listened to his show?

He spews hate non-stop. His entire shtick is violent rhetoric.

It doesn't matter. My personal opinion of him or his show doesn't matter. The biggest asshole on the face of the planet can still be a victim of wrongdoing, and being an enormous asshole is completely irrelevant to whether they should have legal recourse....so long as it's something for which the law allows recompense. That last part is the only question that matters.

 

[Madeline]

Isn't Mark Levin the one who said that Muslims worship a "monkey God"?

Link it.

But you won't.

You can't.

Mark WILLIAMS is not Mark LEVIN. Mark Williams says Terrorists worship a ‘Monkey god’, blasts Ground Zero mosque Koolnews's Blog

My mistake, then.

 

[Madeline]

Responsibility and Mark Levin....!?!?!?



Do you see why that man is a laughing stock?

"Responsibility"

ROTFLMAO!!!

He's not going to waste good money on bad publicity, which is what it would be if he files a case without merit and it's tossed. He may be hot now, but somebody will - or should - talk sense into him.

I actually can't blame him for being pissed. Like him or hate him, he's had some nasty things said about him. Things his friends and family are hearing just as much as he is. Of course that's ugly. A lot of people have had ugly things said about them, on both sides. But they choose to live or at least work in the public eye. I can't see where anything's been said or done that would make this fly. Statements of opinion are not defamation, and speech can be ugly without being actionable.

Are you sure statements of opinion are not defamation? Maybe in a criminal matter, but I can't see how a statement such as, "your neighbor John Doe is a child molester" to other neighbors is not defamation, in some cases.

That is a statement of fact, Wry Catcher. If you said "I think John Doe has an unhealthy interest in children", that would be an opinion. But "He's a child molester" is a statement of fact -- and yes, it would support a slander suit. (There are other elements -- it also has to be damaging to one's reputation, etc. -- but this would be.)

 

[MarcATL]

It doesn't matter. My personal opinion of him or his show doesn't matter. The biggest asshole on the face of the planet can still be a victim of wrongdoing, and being an enormous asshole is completely irrelevant to whether they should have legal recourse....so long as it's something for which the law allows recompense. That last part is the only question that matters.

I think you miss my point.

His show consists of libel 10 times worse than what he's currently wailing about.