Limbaugh May Have Grounds for Libel Suit, Legal Analysts Say

[WriteDown]

Source: Fox News

Rush Limbaugh, who saw his bid to co-own a National Football League team sacked partly because of quotes he purportedly made regarding slavery, could have grounds for a libel suit, legal experts told Foxnews.com.

The conservative radio host was dropped on Wednesday from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Dave Checketts, chairman of the St. Louis Blues hockey team, who is leading the effort to buy the NFL team, said Limbaugh was dropped from the group after his involvement in the process became a "complication and a distraction."

Limbaugh's role in the potential sale became the target of liberals on Monday when reports surfaced on news organizations including CNN, MSNBC and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the radio personality once said that slavery "had its merits."

"Slavery built the South," Limbaugh was reported to have said. "I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merit. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

That purported statement, according to Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell, came from a 2006 book, "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America," by John Huberman, which does not provide specific details regarding the quote.....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,566983,00.html?test=faces

---

Just posting the next shoe that is about to drop.

[villager]

1. so legal "analysts" said this to Fox "news?"

n/t

[truebrit71]

3. My thoughts exactly...

...total bullshit..

[KansDem]

13. I'm surprised FOX didn't' say, "Some legal analysts say..."

I believe that's their M.O.

[curiousdemo]

37. Cry me a river Fox Noise.....

Their so hurt Lard Ass didn't get his bid. This worthless piece of human waste deserve nothing from the mainstream. To the contrary, He's been rejected by the mainstream. Tell Fatso to go back in his radical studio, and yell at his teabagging racist listeners. Only Fox Noise come to his defend like Fox Noise know how, Fuck off Fox........:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[SpiralHawk]

14. Probably Orly Taitz

or someone of her caliber.

Hmmm, then again it could be Clarence Thomas, The Supreme Authority on Republicon Whines.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

53. My first thought, too.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. Probably the same attorneys who filed the Franken lawsuit and were literally laughed out of court.

[chat_noir]

42. Media Can Legally Lie

A Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

also...


Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station. They based their case on Florida whistle-blower laws, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting (or threatening to report) . to a government regulatory agency. employer misconduct, which violates any law, rule or regulation speaking out (or threatening to speak out) against their employer for breaking the law. The jury awarded Akre $425,000, agreeing that her dismissal was retaliation for her threat to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the station's plan to report false information on television.

Fox appealed and the case was overturned. It turns out that lying on TV is not against the law. The FCC's policy against news distortion is a policy, not a "rule, law, or regulation," so the Florida's whistle-blower law did not apply. Furthermore, in a move certain to chill future whistleblowers, the court used the "Non-Prevailing Party Pays" provision of the state's whistleblower protection act to rule that Akre and Wilson pay nearly $200,000 of Fox's legal fees.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

45. Is this the case where WTFox Noise claimed they were entertainment?

...and therefore didn't have to be honest and truthful, ie... Fox News is in the entertainment business so they do not have to be factual in their reporting. I believe it was from 1998 or there abouts.

[marshall]

64. That's not the same thing as libel

But it does illustrate the pervasiveness of lying.

[No Elephants]

74. That case has nothing to do with libeling an individual. And the Florida court is not the last word

on a question of federal law.

the issue in the case you posted about is whether a TV station airing an expose may also air a rebuttal, knowing that the rebuttal contains false information that favors the rebutting party. That is basically an FCC and/or FTC issue (v. freedom of the press), not a libel issue.

[No Elephants]

82. The legal analysts appear to be Rush's lawyer and Fox News' own employee, neither of whom

has much to stand on.

"One of the things he can do is pick up the ball and run straight to court. Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and Fox News legal analyst, said Limbaugh has grounds for a libel suit if he can prove he never uttered those words.

"If he didn't say that, his people should come out and say that," Wiehl said. "If it's true he didn't say that, then this is horrible what those organizations are trying to do to slime him."

As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it."



Rush may be able to make a judge or jury sit through every minute of each and every one of all his insufferable broadcasts. He may even be able to prove that the tapes are complete, with no edits.


But, how the hell does Rush prove he never uttered those words to anyone anywhere?

Rush's lawyer says the media has to prove Rush never said those words or shut up. Wrong. In a libel case, the burden of proof to show falsity would be on Rush, not the media. So, we're back to my first question.

Besides, the statement is that he was reported to have said those things. IThe statements appeared in a book that claims that Rush made those statements. So, Rush was indeed reported to have made the statements. There is no falseness and therefore no libel, even if Rush were not a public figure.

[kestrel91316]

2. I hope he sues, and then the jury is half blacks.

[arthritisR_US]

51. they would get rid of the blacks using their peremptory challenges. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Is it actually libel

when you believe what you print to be true? I recall reading something to this effect.

[WriteDown]

11. Its not a lie, if you believe it.....

George Costanza. :)

[Cirque du So-What]

12. Well, then, it must be true

Georgie Boy's is one of the sharpest legal minds of our generation.

[No Elephants]

80. You don' t need a legal mind. Lying and being mistaken are two different things.

Besides, when you lie, it's written on your forehead.


At least that's what my mom told me when she told me not to lie. So, I know that's right.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. I think what is going to get them is that Limbo sent legal notice to stop. That he

never said those things and if they continued he would pursue legal redress. THEN they continued to say it. (By "they" I mean anyone he served notice to.) He may very well have grounds here. Remember it was fake documents about shrub that was Rather's downfall.

Maybe someone will be able to come up with some legit audio tape of fathead saying those things and that will be the end of it.

[twitomy]

60. Finding the audio should be easy to do...

if these quotes were true.

About one of them:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/10/15/limbaugh-slavery-quote-is-bogus.htm

The only one that appears to be true is the "bloods and crips" remark.

Limbaugh has a lot of money to hire lawyers..its one thing to trash a public figure, in most cases it is not something one can sue over, but if you are going to trash the guy in order to thwart his business deals, best to use real quotes and not make up shit cause you are walking on thin ice legally.

[Solomon]

71. Bullshit. He's said too much. It's the substance of the comments

that matter, not the actual words. As little as two weeks ago I myself heard him say that schools need to be segregated again because in Obama's America black kids beat up white kids.

If Limbaugh wants to open this door, I say go right ahead. Let's hear all the shit he's said over the years. He's bucking for an official ruling that he's a racist. Now that's something I for one would like to see since so many people are always declaring that something racist isn't racist.

I say have at it fat fool.

[Cha]

101. I would think so!

I would also think faux is saying this to start shit and/or keep the shit going.

[No Elephants]

75. You mean the only one of those particular quotes that appears to be true He's said enough racial bs

on TV to start a war.

And the law of libel when it comes to a public figure like Limbaugh is fairly liberal--no pun intended.

Besides, do you know everything Limbaugh ever said to every individual to whom he's everspoken?

[No Elephants]

83. Is the allegation that he said those things, or that he said them on tape?

Saying them does not necessarily mean he said them on his show.

[Hoopla Phil]

109. Not sure. Do you know?

[No Elephants]

92. Rather getting fired has nothing to do with Rush's claims of libel.

[Hoopla Phil]

110. Ok, have a nice day.

[TankLV]

117. No - it was the BULLSHIT noise of the COPIES of REAL documents that bush* was AWOL...

the documents were never proven false - rather they were about to be proven REAL...

[spotbird]

72. reckless disregard

I dare Rush to sue. Rush has a problem with this litigation plan, but I don't want to give it away. Maybe he'll stick with the ace team who implies the suit is winnable.

[No Elephants]

84. .....

"Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).<15>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

[No Elephants]

86. Depends on whether the person defamed is a public figure or not.

If you are making statements about a private person that seem, on the surface to be factual, you'd best check the accuracy of your statements.

[liberal N proud]

5. Foxnews?

[mac56]

6. who would he sue?

Checketts? The NFL? Huberman? Burwell? The Post-Dispatch?

[No Elephants]

85. If anyone, the defendant would be Huberman, the author of the 2006 book. But,

I don't think he can sue anyone successfully.

[DrDan]

7. if it keeps him in the news . . . I wouldn't bet against it

he does love the limelight

[WolverineDG]

8. Then he should sue the author of that book if he didn't make that comment

but ooops, since the statute of limitations is generally 2 years, & the book has been out for 3, I'd say Rush is SOL on that.

dg

[babylonsister]

9. Hahaha! All anyone has to do is provide some choice quotes from

him. I bet he wouldn't dare.

[JonQ]

10. Well if a damaging quote was falsely and intentionally attributed to him

and that hurt him financially that may actually be a case.

Don't know the details but if that's what happened then yeah, he'd have a right to sue.

[Robb]

17. I think his time's up on that quote, though

...I don't believe he could sue the book's author after this much time has passed. All of a sudden his reputation is damaged?

It would be difficult to prove his financial wherewithal has been hurt, even if the quote botched this deal, because it clearly had no effect on every other deal he's made in the past three years. :shrug:

[JonQ]

19. Is there a statute of limitations on such things?

I really don't know.

[No Elephants]

88. Defamation? Sure is. Both on the criminal side and the civil side.

General Rule: statute of limitations for everything but a criminal case for murder.

[JonQ]

111. But what if the damaging libel

didn't come up until recently?

For instance, had I mentioned, offhand on my blog in the 90s that obama was a muslim sleeper agent, and he didn't do anything about it, then I repeated it again when he was running in a deliberate attempt to discredit him with a statement I knew to be false I think he would have a case against me (if he chose to pursue it).

The lawsuit isn't referring to what happened years ago, but rather this current incarnation.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. If he sent cease and desist notices to the news programs regarding

the (supposedly) false quotes and they continued then he has a case against them.

I will be able to show that the purchase of a poorly ranked NFL team was influenced by the libel. The fact that the Rams are not very well ranked makes it easier to show that future earnings were affected.

He may actually have a case.

[JonQ]

32. That seems an important detail

sending a legal warning to desist.

[No Elephants]

89. There's no such thing as a "legal" warning. It's a warning, period. And his lawyer's

letter is bs. See Reply # 82.

But, the media will probably modify their statements somewhat, if only to say that Rush denies ever saying it. They can also check with the author, though, and, if true, say the author stands by what he wrote.

[No Elephants]

87. It is uncontested (so far) that a 2006 book claims that Rush made certain statements.

The recemt comments from CNN et al.--the comments about which Rush and his lawyer are whining--say Rush was reported to have made those statements.

Since the 2006 book reported that Rush made those statements, the recent comments his lawyer complains of are perfectly true, hence no libel whatever.

See also, Reply 82.

[elleng]

15. Fergit it.

No decent lawyer would even entertain it. Standards for defamation of a public person are very difficult to maintain.

'The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.'

http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

[still_one]

16. Screw them, it is a private organization, and they can do what they want /nt

[Hoopla Phil]

30. I think the term you're looking for is "public figure". You are correct to a point. BUT

if he can show malice then he can win.

[elleng]

33. Rush can't win.

'The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.'

[Hoopla Phil]

35. He may actually have a case. Granted public figures rarely do for

the reasons you sited in your previous post. He has a tough case to prove. First, he better have sent the news stations notice to stop the quotes as they are false. Then he has to show malice. He may be able to do this as all he has to do is show a news person said something to the affect "I hope he doesn't get the Rams" and he has intent, along with a disregard of his notice. Then he will have to show damages. I think damages can be shown also. The purchase of a low ranked NFL team that has a potential to improve over the normal ownership period would be a starting point.

I hope he doesn't win this and I cannot stand to think that some in the media may have screwed up but that may be the case. He has filed suit so all we can do at this point is watch and wait.

[still_one]

57. It is a private club, and they can admit whoever they want /nt

[Hoopla Phil]

63. Correct. And if libelous statements influenced that decision there is legal recourse.

I'm just saying that he may very well have a case here. It's tough for a public figure to prove and I really hope some news reports screwed up. I'd really hate to see CNN have to shovel over money to fathead.

[Rage for Order]

67. Not exactly

I believe Congress has given the NFL an anti-trust exemption, so it's not exactly private.

Actually, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961

The Sports Broadcasting Act was passed in response to a court decision which ruled that the NFL's method of negotiating television broadcasting rights violated antitrust laws. The court ruled that the "pooling" of rights by all the teams to conclude an exclusive contract between the league and CBS was illegal.

The Act overrules that decision, and permits certain joint broadcasting agreements among the major professional sports. It permits the sale of a television "package" to the network or networks, a procedure which is common today.

The law has been interpreted to include the so-called "blackout rules" which protect a home team from competing games broadcast into its home territory on a day when it is playing a game at home. It also, in effect, protects high school football and college football game attendance by blacking out pro football games locally on Friday evenings and Saturdays during those sports' regular seasons.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)'s broadcast packages are not subject to the antitrust exemption and it suffered for it, when the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA's restrictive television policies were a violation of antitrust law in the 1980s when the University of Georgia and University of Oklahoma sued the NCAA over television restrictions (limit of six television appearances over two years) established in 1952.


on edit: I don't know that this would come into play in determining whether the NFL is a private club, but I suppose it could. Any good lawyers in the house?

[No Elephants]

94. I thought Rush's partner dropped him because Rush's presence in the deal had become "problematic."

[Rage for Order]

112. I don't know

I haven't paid too much attention to the whole thing because I assumed the NFL would never go for it. The last thing the league wants is to have people protesting every Sunday outside of every St. Louis Rams game. I was referring only to whether or not the NFL would be considered a private club for the purpose of a libel lawsuit since the league has an anti-trust exemption from Congress.

[No Elephants]

91. Please see Reply 82. I don't think the media screwed up and I don't think

Rush can ever meet his burden of proof.

At least, not based on the facts stated in the article quoted in the OP.

[Hoopla Phil]

107. Yes, he has a tough case to prove. I said he MAY be able to do that.

Have a nice day.

[No Elephants]

97. So far, I can't find anything on line that says he's actually filed a libel suit.

[Hoopla Phil]

108. I have not seen it on line either. Have a nice day.

[still_one]

56. Actually public figure is a different point. What I am saying is it is a private club

and they can accept whoever they want

I would like to see them prove malice on them referring to something he himself said on public airwaves

He won't sue, and this is faux way to incite their narrow minded viewers

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if those "narrow minded viewers" who watch faux can sue me for malice?

[Hoopla Phil]

65. Pardon me, I stand corrected on that point. However

if libelous statements made by a news organization influenced that private organization then he MAY have legal recourse against those news organizations.

As I've stated in other posts on this thread all he will need to do is find a reporter that said something to the affect of "I hope he doesn't get the Rams" and he has intent of malice. Malice is very very hard to prove and that will likely be the hardest part for him.

I've herd via fox radio news (cannot avoid it as it's played on the music breaks on the oldies station I listen too) that he has already filed suit.

[No Elephants]

90. Self Delete

[daleo]

18. He could sue, but he'd probably lose

I bet the quote is real and can be sourced. It sounds like him.

[brooklynite]

20. How would you like to be the Paralegal.....

.....who's going to have to listen to 20 years of his broadcasts to check what he did and didn't say?

[treestar]

79. LOL, not enough pay in the world!

Even in this economy!

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

95. Does the 2006 book specify that he said all those things on his show?

[old guy]

21. Was one of the legal analysts Orly Taitz (sp)?

[mitchum]

22. Is he going to sue everyone who says that Limbaugh fucks little boys?

[Psephos]

61. No, just those whose comments create substantial material damages. n/t

[No Elephants]

99. Assuming the article in the OP is correct on its facts, he has no llbel case, even

if he is damaged.

[Psephos]

113. After having been through a wrongful suit in civil court, I can state with authority that...

...the justice system does not deal in justice, and that not having a good case does not prevent one from winning a suit. ;)

Limpballs has lots of $$$, and increases his "brand" by baiting his tormenters. Looks like a no-lose proposition for him regardless of the outcome.

[Ian David]

23. Isn't "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America," a CONSERVATIVE book? n/t

[safeinOhio]

24. I recall another Limbaugh legal opinion

"No one hires Roy Black unless they are guilty". That was before he hired him in his own drug case.:rofl:

[Xicano]

26. Question: Are not the repubs, especially Limbaugh and alike, big against frivolous lawsuits?

Or is that term just repub euphemism for the poor should not be allowed to sue the rich?

[No Elephants]

96. I don't think anyone is FOR frivolous lawsuits. But the Republicans have odd notions of what

is a frivolous lawsuit and what isn't. A lawsuit is not frivolous just because a Republican says it is.

[Buzz Clik]

27. Gee. If only he hadn't said those things.

[JonQ]

28. I think that's the question here

No doubt those quotes hurt him financially. No doubt they were brought out with that intention.

So really it comes down to: did he say them or not? Seems that is what's in dispute.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Well, Piggy will have fun finding someone to sue ...

... and proving that he didn't say those things.

[twitomy]

49. That should be easy to do.

Just read the transcripts. If he didnt say them, he has a case.

[JonQ]

62. Yeah they usually have a transcript from every show

should be pretty cut and dried.

[no_hypocrisy]

31. Truth is a defense of libel.

Did Rush say on record what he was supposed to have said and it was recorded?

Was it read by a third party?

There ya go.

[No Elephants]

77. Truth is the standard UNLESS a public figure is involved. Then, the media

can be mistaken (or playing loose), unless there is "actual malice."

[DeSwiss]

34. The truth....

...is an absolute defense against libel.

- So now all he has to do is get a jury or a judge to believe that he's not a racist pig.

[santamargarita]

36. Goddamn Fox is not a news source!

UGH!

[Orsino]

38. Oh, please, please, please...

...let the discovery phase get daily coverage.

[crim son]

39. There isn't a thing this asshole has been accused of that he hasn't

actually done, or worse. Go ahead & sue, Fatboy.

[MidwestTransplant]

40. OxyRush is a public figure. Going to be hard to prove Libel.

[regnaD kciN]

43. That wasn't the only quote that disqualified him...

There were also some undeniably genuine comments from him, such as that we needed a national holiday for James Earl Ray. :puke:

It will be hard to prove that he lost out on his chance to buy the team just because of that one misattributed quote.

[SemperEadem]

44. he's a public figure. He would have to prove acutal malice

and there isn't any. This was business, not personal.

Suck it, limpballs.

[twitomy]

54. I dont think so.

He has to prove damages. The loss of the business opportunity would qualify.

[Ajaye]

46. He does not have much of a case

But neither did Orly Taitz. Obviously you do not need to have a factual cause of action to take something to court.

[WCGreen]

47. I really don't think it was so-called liberals in the media who pressured the

group set to purchase the St. Louis Rams, rather it was the Players Union that was most troubling to the League.

[SandWalker1984]

48. Barack the magic negro, and other great Lintball quotes

Google Rush and racism and you get pages upon pages of quotes from him that your mother would wash your mouth out with soap for saying.

I found these 10 on newsone.com

It has come to my attention that some people are questioning the legitimacy of these quotes, so I have decided to source them. Every quote was found in a book or reputable website.


Here’s Our Top 10 Racist Rush Limbaugh Quotes

1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray . We miss you, James. Godspeed.

3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela — who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.


5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

6. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

7. They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

8. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).

9. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

10. Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.

[riverdeep]

116. According to Snopes, not all those quotes have strong attribution.

But what IS attributable is bad enough, he DID tell a Black listener to 'take that bone out of your nose', he DID say the media has a vested interest in seeing a Black quarterback doing well (to oppose the image that Blacks aren't smart enough to play quarterback, read between the lines), he DID say that the NFL resembles a game between the Bloods and the Crips. These are all things that can be backed up and documented.

So fine, even if you didn't say that Rush, you've said just as worse, so just what is your defense? I can't say this enough: FUCK YOU Rush!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

[scytherius]

50. While I hope he DOES file suit . . . and "bullshit" said the lawyer

As a public figure he is going to have to prove actual malice and he is going to have to prove it with what is the civil equivalent of "beyond a reasonable doubt", i.e. clear and convincing evidence.. He will have to show that those who published the statements actually knew them to be false (or were so reckless that they should have known them false) AND that they were published with the specific intent of libeling him. It is a brutally tough standard to achieve.

What would be even more fun is that truth is a defense. Limbaugh's statements of pretty much all kinds would be paraded through court. He would be scrutinized like never before. Of course this would have zero effect of the few million loonies that love him. But the couple hundred million that don't really pay attention will see just what is leading the GOP.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Rush file suit in this one.

[Arkana]

52. Wouldn't that be a "frivolous lawsuit"?

And Rush will lose--he's said every single one of the things that's been attributed to him.

[Honeycombe8]

55. Just more hogwash talk to talk up Rush as a sympathetic figure. He doesn't

want his prior statements being hashed through the press for years. ALL of his statements. From whatever source. Going back for years and years and years.

[The Second Stone]

59. I'm a California lawyer with experience handling libel cases

and while the author of the book may have liability within the statute of limitations, if Rush has not taken action, anybody relying on it is on pretty safe grounds. The statute of limitations is different in different states, but a 2006 publication would be shit out of luck in California. This is not legal advice.

[No Elephants]

76. Limbaugh is a public figure. Whether or not Limbaugh sued, actual malice is the standard.

"That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media."

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/media/unfetter/press08.htm

[The Second Stone]

93. There is not question that Limbaugh is a public figure

for all purposes. Malice for this purpose is stating something with "knowing falsity" or "reckeless disregard for the truth".

[No Elephants]

100. ? My post said Limbaugh is a public figure. But your other post said something about

Limbaugh's having sued the book author between 2006 and 2008.

Limbaugh and his attorney are complaining about CNN and other outlets repeating the statement from the book.

I was simply pointing out that whether Limbaugh had sued the book's author or not was not the standard.

Under the malice standard, I don't think the media is under a duty to check the dockets for a two year period in 50 states to see if Limbaugh sued the author (and won).

Besides, the statement quoted in the OP is not false to begin with. Please see Reply # 82.

[MadMaddie]

66. So when all of the transcripts of his racist rhetoric are used in

court...then no not really!!

[Art_from_Ark]

68. This coming from a guy who made a "career" out of

dragging Bill Clinton's name through the mud

[No Elephants]

102. Limbaugh's dragged a lot of people through the mud.

[Art_from_Ark]

115. Certainly he has done that

But when I was listening to his show (don't ask me why), he was always ragging on Clinton, every single night, non-stop.

By the way, I got so angry listening to that windbag one night that I actually threw the radio across the room, and it never worked after that.

[Trajan]

69. Ah ....

Carrying dirty water yet again WD .....

Some things never change ....

[No Elephants]

104. Many have posted similar sentiments, including me.

[truthisfreedom]

70. He has to posture now, to regain the confidence of his dittoheads.

They're looking quizzically at him now, wondering how it is they're following someone who can't even be part of a legitamate business deal. He can't have that!

[Vinca]

73. There must be hours of video of LImbaugh saying horribly offensive things.

It's only libel if it isn't true.

[treestar]

78. So pork boy is denying that he said some of these things?

And admitting that anyone who said such things will suffer harm to their reputation?

[rocktivity]

81. TRANSLATION: Limbaugh May Have Grounds for Libel Suit

If He's Stupid Enough to Pay Us, Legal Analysts Say

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[xxqqqzme]

98. That is only one quote mentioned in the article

Where are all the others? Checketts does not reference the quote but 'liberals are supposedly using it. I saw many quotes referenced yesterday. He has a well deserved label of bigot.

[No Elephants]

103. The media are liberal? News to me!

[Kingofalldems]

105. How many of his books have you read?

[Hansel]

106. Well if Rush were to win such a suit it would put him and Fox News out of business

when everyone who had similar claims against them used his case as precedence.

I think he better not even begin to start down that road.

[classysassy]

114. " A league of their own"

Mr Limbaugh and some of his like minded friends could form their own league.(black quaterbacks,need not apply).There could be teams in states without pro teams,mississippi,the ms sharecroppers,arkansas,the little rock hounddogs,south carolina, the sc peckerheads,alabama,the basma sheets,kentucky,the ky moonshiners.utah,ut saltydogs.

[and-justice-for-all]

118. I seriously doubt it...nt