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

[goldcatt]

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.

Then the people he's defaming have recourse of their own. Nobody can sue for them, they have to do it themselves. *shrug*

I'm looking at this from a different point of view, obviously. Under the law, everybody has the same rights, remedies and access to the courts to use as they see fit. And before anybody brings up money, I'm sure if there were a solid case against a polarizing ideological figure an attorney looking for a high-profile gig would take it on contingency, and certain advocacy groups would be more than happy to lend a hand.

 

[MarcATL]

Regardless of the angle one is looking at this media attention attempt of the D-List radio jockey, time will tell us whether or not it was indeed another stunt for attention, or a serious matter to be handled by the courts.

I smell a RW stunt.

 

[Liability]

Regardless of the angle one is looking at this media attention attempt of the D-List radio jockey, time will tell us whether or not it was indeed another stunt for attention, or a series matter to be handled by the courts.

I smell a RW stunt.

MalcolmExLax, you truly can't be series.

You knucklehead.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I tell you what, I'll start highlighting your tendency from here on out. The most recent in this thread was Chrissy Matthews.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Regardless of the angle one is looking at this media attention attempt of the D-List radio jockey, time will tell us whether or not it was indeed another stunt for attention, or a series matter to be handled by the courts.

I smell a RW stunt.

MalcolmExLax, you truly can't be series.

You knucklehead.

Lets step above knocking each other for typos

It's petty.

 

[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.

I tell you what, I'll start highlighting your tendency from here on out. The most recent in this thread was Chrissy Matthews.

Oh nozies. Raving Lunacy is going to "start" highlighting some of my posts.

Oh nozies.

Your obsession, schmuck, is nothing new.

And you remain wrong anyway. Chrissy is not feminizing.

When I made reference in the past few days to that fuckwit Ed Schulz, please highlight how that one was "feminized." Or the asshat scumbag Bill Maher. Maybe a moron such as you thinks that "asshat" and "scumbag" is a form of "feminizing?" You tool.

Anyway, you go right ahead. Imus used to refer to former Connecticut U.S. Senator Dodd as Chrissy Hissy Fit Dodd. But somehow, I don't think that quite qualifies, either, you drip.

 

[Liability]

Regardless of the angle one is looking at this media attention attempt of the D-List radio jockey, time will tell us whether or not it was indeed another stunt for attention, or a series matter to be handled by the courts.

I smell a RW stunt.

MalcolmExLax, you truly can't be series.

You knucklehead.

Lets step above knocking each other for typos

It's petty.

No.

When an asshat like Malcolm ExLax, who so often feigns to be some kind of omniscient observer (floating above the mere mortals on this Earthly plane ), makes such an ignorant and careless mistake, I will go right on making note of it when I feel it's warranted.

We all make errors in spelling or grammar from time to time and almost all of us fail to properly edit before submitting a post from time to time, too. We all usually let them slide. But sometimes, whether you deem it petty or not, the one making the post deserves to have his nose (or her nose) rubbed in his (or her) own shit.

 

[WillowTree]

Regardless of the angle one is looking at this media attention attempt of the D-List radio jockey, time will tell us whether or not it was indeed another stunt for attention, or a series matter to be handled by the courts.

I smell a RW stunt.

MalcolmExLax, you truly can't be series.

You knucklehead.

Lets step above knocking each other for typos

It's petty.

Hell no! It's not petty Tom. Especially when the left is lecturing us down their snooooty noses about how ignorant we are.

 

[Two Thumbs]

MalcolmExLax, you truly can't be series.

You knucklehead.

Lets step above knocking each other for typos

It's petty.

Hell no! It's not petty Tom. Especially when the left is lecturing us down their snooooty noses about how ignorant we are.

yeah, it is.

It lowers us to that level. I'd rather be able to say we can rise above being petty than say we can lower ourselves to thiers and give as good as we get.

 

[Liability]

Lets step above knocking each other for typos

It's petty.

Hell no! It's not petty Tom. Especially when the left is lecturing us down their snooooty noses about how ignorant we are.

yeah, it is.

It lowers us to that level. I'd rather be able to say we can rise above being petty than say we can lower ourselves to thiers and give as good as we get.

Then, by all means, don't do it yourself, ever.

But as for your lectures to me (and others) you might as well stow it.

I don't do it too often, but every once in a while, to goad the snot out of a sanctimonious blowhard like Malcolm ExLax, I sure as hell will go right on doing it. Yes, despite your disapproval.

(By the way, I found two solid typos before submitting this post. Well, one was a typo. The other was just poor spelling on my part. I fixed both, before I hit the old submit button! The grammatical errors contained in this post, which certain experts would note in my prose, remain. Malcolm ExLax or anybody else may feel free to mock away. I can take it.)

 

[Talismen]

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.

The 1st amendment isn't a license to abuse freedom of speech.
One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
One cannot write or say that which untrue about someone, without the risk of facing charges of slander or libel.

If one can prove a charge to be true, then it's not slander, nor is it libel.
If one cannot, they are still certainly entitled to their opinion.

But one CANNOT willfully make a charge so egregiously erroneous that it harms another.

 

[Rozman]

I will take Mark Levin at any time and not look back when it comes to things legal.If he said Federal Court
he must have had a reason.Maybe Chris Mathews can use all his legal expertise to explain why Mark is talking out his ARSE....I would love to see this happen.

Getting tired of listening all week from the likes of Mathews and Ed Schultz and the dope of a Sheriff in Arizona going on and on about how the right wing radio and TV shows caused this.

 

[bodecea]

I will take Mark Levin at any time and not look back when it comes to things legal.If he said Federal Court
he must have had a reason.Maybe Chris Mathews can use all his legal expertise to explain why Mark is talking out his ARSE....I would love to see this happen.

Getting tired of listening all week from the likes of Mathews and Ed Schultz and the dope of a Sheriff in Arizona going on and on about how the right wing radio and TV shows caused this.

Why do you do it then?

 

[goldcatt]

The 1st amendment isn't a license to abuse freedom of speech.
One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
One cannot write or say that which untrue about someone, without the risk of facing charges of slander or libel.

If one can prove a charge to be true, then it's not slander, nor is it libel.
If one cannot, they are still certainly entitled to their opinion.

But one CANNOT willfully make a charge so egregiously erroneous that it harms another.

Read this and I have to do it now.

There was a case, an infamous, hysterical but really very important First Amendment case, that hit the Supreme Court wherein Hustler magazine printed a parody of a popular ad suggesting Jerry Falwell got drunk and gave an interview stating he had sex with his mother in an outhouse.

(pause for laughter and/or outrage)

Even in that situation, Falwell lost straight through on his defamation claim. He initially won on intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the Supremies overturned it. Speech that is protected cannot be subject to government sanction, including in civil courts.

In smacking down the award, this is part of what the Court had to say:

"Outrageousness" in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An "outrageousness" standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978):

[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [p56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

Id. at 745-746. See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) ("It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers").

And the Court concluded:

We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing, in addition, that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. This is not merely a "blind application" of the New York Times standard, see Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 390 (1967); it reflects our considered judgment that such a standard is necessary to give adequate "breathing space" to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. [p57]

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

While defamation (in this case libel) was lost from the start and never heard at the Supremies level, this is the rule and the rationale that has followed for public figures in cases of this nature. It's actually a restatement and clarification of an older statement of the rule, from New York Times v. Sullivan.

So "harm" is not enough, not for a public figure. It's too subjective. Was there actual malice as defined here? That's the question.

 

[xotoxi]

“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”

Mark Levin incited mass murder in Tucson, Arizona.

 

[xotoxi]

“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”

Mark Levin incited mass murder in Tucson, Arizona.

Sue me, motherfucker!

 

[Liability]

“Anyone,” Levin continued, “who accuses me of inciting mass murder in Tucson, Arizona is going to be sued. Period.”

Mark Levin incited mass murder in Tucson, Arizona.

Sue me, motherfucker!

I'm pretty sure he meant anybody worth suing.

 

[MarcATL]

I will take Mark Levin at any time and not look back when it comes to things legal.If he said Federal Court
he must have had a reason.Maybe Chris Mathews can use all his legal expertise to explain why Mark is talking out his ARSE....I would love to see this happen.

Getting tired of listening all week from the likes of Mathews and Ed Schultz and the dope of a Sheriff in Arizona going on and on about how the right wing radio and TV shows caused this.

Why do you do it then?

Thank you!

 

[xotoxi]

Mark Levin incited mass murder in Tucson, Arizona.

Sue me, motherfucker!

I'm pretty sure he meant anybody worth suing.

You're probably right.

 

[uscitizen]

(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.”


​

And I thought the right were against frivilous lawsuits constoing our govt oney?