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

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I do love when public figures reveal their lack of understanding of the US legal system.

 

[MarcATL]

Does anyone know the origin of mark levin's Sleepy Eye?

 

[Talismen]

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.

Indeed...Malice is the money word.
And the defendant simply stating "why no, your honor, I had no malice aforethought at all", isn't enough.

 

[bodecea]

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:



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.

Indeed...Malice is the money word.
And the defendant simply stating "why no, your honor, I had no malice aforethought at all", isn't enough.

I truely hope this goes to court.

 

[bodecea]

Does anyone know the origin of mark levin's Sleepy Eye?

Alcohol Abuse? Oxycotin?

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

If they are saying, alleging, his rhetoric is responsible for influencing Loughner's shooting spree, they have committed one of the following depending on what form they did it in: Libel or slander. It has been done in malice and with forethought and can be construed by Levin to have caused deleterious effects on his public reputation and sue for damages or at least a public retraction as well as a cease and desist order on further activities.

Just beware that he could win, the same way Gary Condit won one of his defamation of character case for accusations by a radio host that he killed Chandra Levy. It may be difficult for Levin, but the public spectacle (and it WILL be very public you can guarantee it) of having these commentators dragged in front of a court will spawn a lot of uncomfortable attention being cast on all the formerly safe demagogues on leftist TV and newspaper editorial boards. It very well may cause blowback, but in the end, the left would lose most.

 

[Big Fitz]

Does anyone know the origin of mark levin's Sleepy Eye?

Alcohol Abuse? Oxycotin?

allergy to leftist assholes?

 

[MarcATL]

Does anyone know the origin of mark levin's Sleepy Eye?

Alcohol Abuse? Oxycotin?

The man is extremely stressed...he's always screaming, ranting and raving. I'm worried about him. Probably high blood pressure. It does bad things to the body.

 

[Liability]

(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?

WTF?

Care to post in English this time?

 

[Liability]

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.

I do love when public figures reveal their lack of understanding of the US legal system.

Yeah, right. Attorney Mark Levin probably doesn't understand our system as well as the Dr.IsInsane.

Really valid post, there, nitwit.

 

[Liability]

Does anyone know the origin of mark levin's Sleepy Eye?

Maybe he read one of your gibberish filled posts and suffered a stroke due to your intellectual inability to say anything of value?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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)

Obviously members of the Tea Party have adopted the liberal angel as one of their own patron saints and advisors.

 

[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?

WTF?

Care to post in English this time?

Damn finners!

OOps.

Costing our government money.

 

[Ravi]

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.

If they are saying, alleging, his rhetoric is responsible for influencing Loughner's shooting spree, they have committed one of the following depending on what form they did it in: Libel or slander. It has been done in malice and with forethought and can be construed by Levin to have caused deleterious effects on his public reputation and sue for damages or at least a public retraction as well as a cease and desist order on further activities.

Just beware that he could win, the same way Gary Condit won one of his defamation of character case for accusations by a radio host that he killed Chandra Levy. It may be difficult for Levin, but the public spectacle (and it WILL be very public you can guarantee it) of having these commentators dragged in front of a court will spawn a lot of uncomfortable attention being cast on all the formerly safe demagogues on leftist TV and newspaper editorial boards. It very well may cause blowback, but in the end, the left would lose most.

You could be right, the left will lose the most: the right will be able to go on being hateful and vitriolic and the left will not be able to criticize them for it. How funny that the right once again proves itself to love big government when it benefits the right.

As far as I can find, this is what Matthews said:

"What's been the role of talk radio in fueling the heated language?

“I’ll mention a couple of names. People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example, who every time you listen to them, they are furious. Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk, and it never changes, it never modulates.

“They must have an audience. I looked at the numbers today. They have big audiences.

“And I guess that’s the question. Why and is it ever going to stop if it keeps working?”

There is nothing in there that accuses Levin of responsibility for the murders.


Levin is just yet another dbag out to profit off of this tragedy.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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!

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

You said it Sister...

If the leftist media didn't lie.. they wouldn't have much to say..

 

[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:



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.

Indeed...Malice is the money word.
And the defendant simply stating "why no, your honor, I had no malice aforethought at all", isn't enough.

No, you're misreading the rule here. Levin or any public figure suing for IIED, invasion of privacy, defamation or other tort based on statements made in public like this would have as part of HIS burden to prove that not only were the statements made about him statements of fact and not opinion, not mere speculation of a "maybe", but that they were statements of fact that the speaker in fact knew to be false and broadcasted anyway, or that they were statements of fact the speaker did not know the veracity of but broadcasted as fact in reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

The defendant of course will provide evidence to show that it was not, but it's not the defendant's burden to carry.

I haven't seen every minute of every hour of the feeding frenzy from every talking head out there on both sides of the disgusto-meter, so I can't say whether it's impossible to find that sort of statement from someone, somewhere with 100% certainty. But that's a high standard to meet, and makes it difficult for public figures to sue for this kind of statement, particularly when they're suing other public figures whose job is to offer political and social commentary - opinion.

I'm not going to post a copy of the ad from Hustler that was the subject of that suit here, it's not visually graphic but would sidetrack the thread and a a lot of people might find it offensive. But I have it, if anybody wants a copy of it to take a look at it and see what kind of things can be said and still not found actionable....feel free to pm me for it. It might be rather eye-opening.

 

[goldcatt]

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!

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

You said it Sister...

If the leftist media didn't lie.. they wouldn't have much to say..

If ALL media didn't lie, speculate, rush to judgment or bloviate, they wouldn't have much to say.

Which is kinda my point. He's certainly free to try, but a public figure can't sue for speculating, opining, ridiculing, parodying, rushing to judgment so long as they qualify it or have a source to back it....flat out lying is possibly a different story, but Levin would have to prove his burden under New York Times and Hustler.

Why do you think CNN and others gave on-air justifications and excuses after they pulled the report that Giffords had died? They wanted to make it clear that they were not making a false statement of fact in reckless disregard for its truth, but had made an error and relied on incorrect sources - which is not reckless.

Major media outlets know the line, they have lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing. I doubt they're going to let anything on air that crosses that line.

 

[Rozman]

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?

Maybe to shine a light on the fact that the liberal left controlled media is guilty of attacking people and accusing people of murder or being an accomplice to murder.The NY Daily News had a column the day after the shooting saying that Sarah Palin had blood on her hands.Ed Schultz has gone after her for a week now.Isn't he trying to do the same thing, getting people to believe that she caused this to happen and in doing so damage her image and label her a murderer.

I'm glad Mark is pushing back on this.....

 

[Big Fitz]

the right will be able to go on being hateful and vitriolic

Must be nice wearing polarized glasses that blind you to the hate of the left, while making you hypersensitive to any comments from the right. Tha's fucked up.

the left will not be able to criticize them for it.

Horseshit. It'll force them at best to start backing up their emotion based skreeds of panic and envy with facts and reason instead of hiding behind the "they're a public figure so I can 'allege' all day long they're a nazi inspiring thousands to kill.' bullshit that we've been living with for a few decades now. Force some responsibility back on you or slap some consequences on the left's ass finally.

Levin is just yet another dbag out to profit off of this tragedy.

I don't listen to Chris Matthews for one, but Levin has the right to file a lawsuit against anyone he damn well wants. Winning on the other hand may or may not be possible depending on the issues being sued over.

Don't forget. Levin is the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, is a lawyer who has argued and won in front of the Supreme Court on a few occasions as well. Don't think that he's just some ignorant blowhard looking for profit. I've listened to his show in the past and he knows where he stands with the law. He also knows how long the left since Abby Hoffmann has been skating on thin legal ice and had built the litigious world we now live in and thinking because they made it, they're immune to the consequences of it.

The culture is shifting again to the right, as it had before the great depression. This is just a natural course of a nation. The era of leftism is slowly coming to an end as 3 generations of it's dominance is coming to an end and the consequences of their actions and failed philosophies come to an end. The same happened with the guilded age, and will happen again.

So you think short sighted all you want, but know that this type of action is coming, and your side is no longer immune from the consequences of your words.

 

[Ravi]

I am not blind to hatred from lefties...but that is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing a lawsuit from a hypersensitive rightie alleging that he was blamed for last weekend's murders. I have not seen one statement that backs up his claim.