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

[Capitalist]

(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.”


​

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[California Girl]

I would love that. Come on Mark, sue!

 

[goldcatt]

I would love that. Come on Mark, sue!

It would certainly be entertaining. It would also be short-lived. But hey, anyone can file.

Really I just want an excuse to post Hustler v. Falwell.

 

[MarcATL]

LOL!!



Too funny.

 

[Sallow]

Go Mark Go!

 

[California Girl]

I would love that. Come on Mark, sue!

It would certainly be entertaining. It would also be short-lived. But hey, anyone can file.

Really I just want an excuse to post Hustler v. Falwell.

One of these days, some right wing talk show host is gonna get shot.... And the left will find out what it's like to be falsely accused.

But... on topic.... how cool would it be to see some of the media getting dragged into court? I would be highly entertained!

 

[Madeline]

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.

 

[MarcATL]

I would love that. Come on Mark, sue!

It would certainly be entertaining. It would also be short-lived. But hey, anyone can file.

Really I just want an excuse to post Hustler v. Falwell.

One of these days, some right wing talk show host is gonna get shot.... And the left will find out what it's like to be falsely accused.

But... on topic.... how cool would it be to see some of the media getting dragged into court? I would be highly entertained!

One could argue that if a RW talk-show host gets shot, it would be the chicken coming home to roost.

Suffering from their own rhetoric coming back to bite them in the butt.

I see that as a more plausible argument and scenario.

 

[goldcatt]

I would love that. Come on Mark, sue!

It would certainly be entertaining. It would also be short-lived. But hey, anyone can file.

Really I just want an excuse to post Hustler v. Falwell.

One of these days, some right wing talk show host is gonna get shot.... And the left will find out what it's like to be falsely accused.

But... on topic.... how cool would it be to see some of the media getting dragged into court? I would be highly entertained!

Meh, it would never make it that far. Public figures, members of the press, giving opinions on air? Covered. Under more than one scenario. Hell, they're even allowed to lie, remember?

But yeah....if it happened I'd have a whole thread dedicated to that case. Kickass!

 

[MarcATL]

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.

LoLing @ your last statement.

So true.

But what I was going to say is, that many people are saying that Levin has a long history of being jealous of the pundits on tv, him being relegated to playing 2nd and/or third fiddle to his Gods Rush and Hannity.

 

[MarcATL]

Even if Chris Matthews and everyone Levin considers his opponents in punditry are actually lying about him...FOXNews already won that argument that makes it OK to lie.

Levin is TOAST!!

LOL!!

 

[Modbert]

Hell, they're even allowed to lie, remember?

Man is this going be entertaining if that comes up in court.

 

[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.

 

[California Girl]

It would certainly be entertaining. It would also be short-lived. But hey, anyone can file.

Really I just want an excuse to post Hustler v. Falwell.

One of these days, some right wing talk show host is gonna get shot.... And the left will find out what it's like to be falsely accused.

But... on topic.... how cool would it be to see some of the media getting dragged into court? I would be highly entertained!

One could argue that if a RW talk-show host gets shot, it would be the chicken coming home to roost.

Suffering from their own rhetoric coming back to bite them in the butt.

I see that as a more plausible argument and scenario.

Yea, you would argue that. I would say that no one - no matter what their political view - deserves to be murdered. That you seemingly find it acceptable does not surprise me in the slightest.

You will never see a conservative argue to have anyone's voice silenced... no matter what that person says - unless they incite real violence against another person or group. That is because we value freedom more than anything.

 

[Revere]

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.

Slander is provable. Public figures can and do prevail in court.

 

[Madeline]

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?

 

[Madeline]

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.

Slander is provable. Public figures can and do prevail in court.

Yes, they do, Revere. The last time this happened that I recall offhand was Carol Burnett, who sued the National Enquirer for reporting she had been seen drunk.

Because it was widely know Burnett was the child of alcoholics, this was a painful accusation to make. She could prove "actual malice" -- and that the paper knew the story was incorrect when they ran it.

The showing required of a public figure seeking an award for slander is very high.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

 

[MarcATL]

Yea, you would argue that. I would say that no one - no matter what their political view - deserves to be murdered. That you seemingly find it acceptable does not surprise me in the slightest.

You will never see a conservative argue to have anyone's voice silenced... no matter what that person says - unless they incite real violence against another person or group. That is because we value freedom more than anything.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsJJ2Vp95o8[/ame]

And BTW, I never said that I would argue that, I said "one could argue." Big difference.