What do you expect? It's talk radio, court says

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A federal appeals court had some advice Friday for anyone whose reputation gets trashed on talk radio: Don't bother suing for slander, because no one reasonably expects objective facts from the typical talk show host.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco offered no solace to an Oregon couple who sued Tom Martino, host of a nationally syndicated consumer-advice show. In a 2004 call from a customer of the couple's recreational vehicle outlet who complained about the store's failure to repair a defective jet ski, Martino told her, "They're just lying to you."

That's not slander, the court said, because slander and its written counterpart, libel, are false statements of fact that damage someone's reputation. An assertion that might otherwise sound factual - that the retailer lied - would be interpreted as opinion by any reasonable talk show listener, the court said.

Martino's program "contains many of the elements that would reduce the audience's expectation of learning an objective fact: drama, hyperbolic language, an opinionated and arrogant host, and heated controversy," the three-judge panel said, upholding a judge's dismissal of the suit.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/24/BA4B178L0N.DTL&tsp=1

[The Magistrate]

1. The Weakness Of This Decision, Sir, Is The Idea Of a 'Reasonable Talk Show Listener'....

That particular animacule is damned thin on the ground.

[ananda]

5. Hartsoeker and all his little "animalcules"..

.. completely understand.

[Fozzledick]

7. Indeed, I would argue that their audience consists mainly of fools gullible enough to believe them

and take the court's arguments as substantiation that they cater to and seek to attract just such an audience.

[Xipe Totec]

2. So much for suing Limbaugh for being a shithead

Court's response: No shit, Sherlock.

[ck4829]

3. Talk radio means "No facts." I wonder if Righties will try to get this one appealed.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "Noone reasonably expects honesty from their government" either ya know . .

.
.
.

Isn't that just lovely?

JUDGE?

So I guess we can just all forget about our "protection" from our own spying/torturing governments . . .

cuz that would be "unreasonable"

right JUDGE?

Not much wonder North America is in serious disgust

(sigh)

[Laelth]

6. Wonder whether that's a Bybee opinion. n/t

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[depakid]

8. This reinforces the imperative for responsible re-regulation of the American media

The utter lack of accountability has done more damage to the country than any other single set of policy decisions over the past 25 years

[FreakinDJ]

11. I agree whole heartedly

There are litterally millions of empty headed idiots (formerly known as Freeps/Sheeple) walking around out there beleiving Rush LimpDick

[underpants]

9. Fox News v. Al Franken "wholly without merit"

[tomm2thumbs]

10. no doubt it will be appealed again

the term 'lying' about a specific item that can be proved otherwise is slander - however, if they or their business promised to do something and it was not done properly, perhaps they did lie and therefore are just using this to seek damages and silence critics. Who knows. The truth will set you free, however it falls.

[MADem]

12. ....would be interpreted as opinion by any reasonable talk show listener, the court said???

Most of those idiots who listen to talk radio treat it like a religion--they're not "reasonable." They take that bullshit on faith.

[No Elephants]

13. Guess whose lawyer made that argument to the Court? We should get hold of the brief and frame it.

[caseymoz]

14. The courts have validated the insight that TalkShowHosts are buffoons.

so much so, that they can't be held responsible for what they say.

:wtf:


Shouldn't they then be in a skilled-care facility and have a legal guardian? I mean, what qualifies these guys to operate a microphone? Not that the law should be deciding that, but shouldn't a ruling like this make people think again about this form of "infotainment?" That it's a waste of eartime?

Anybody with an IQ higher than a jellyfish should have known better than to make a declaration like that when the names were out in the open. It didn't just hurt business, these people were threatened.

In this ruling, the court is close to saying that anybody who does that is proved too dumb to be held responsible for it.


:banghead:

[rasputin1952]

15. The operating word here:

"would be interpreted as opinion by any reasonable talk show listener, the court said."

"reasonable". How many people who tune in to RW talk radio on a steady basis are reasonable?

I listen occasionally, to find out what they are going to attack, and what the talking points are...but to listen to the tripe everday would be pushing my sanity into a busy street of hyerbole.

I can stomach the Savage Weiner vor about 5 mnutes...and that's pushing it. Limbaugh gets about 1/2 an hour...Beck, zilch...:D

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. The enshrinement of the Lowest Common Denominator.

It is law: We are all bozos on this bus.

This will soon apply to all forms of communication. Commercials, news, press releases, laws and legal opinions, FDA reports, whatever.

Our new national motto: "What, you believed them? Fool!"

[rasputin1952]

17. Lot's of dim bulbs in the chandelier in the RW lobby...

if there was any IQ involved, I might actually feel a little scared...:D