Posted on 10/13/2009 1:46:29 PM PDT by kingattax
Don't forget to protest your municipality to defund the stadiums that were built on the public dollar to house the NFL.
“The bombing starts in 5 minutes.” - Ronald Reagan
Actually this could get much worse for these networks than defending against a civil suit.
___________________________________________________________
I think that your are right. Rush is not the sole buyer in the bid. The bid is made up of others as well. If the bid is lost due to libel and slander, I would think that the other members on Rush’s bid team could sue the media outlets for punitive damages (lost revenue).
We could be looking at hundreds of millions in damages towards CNN, MSNBC, etc.
You can’t prove a negative. Just as Michelle Obama had no “proof” that she’d never said “whitey”.
Those making the charge need to go on record and say “I was there” or produce the tape.
“Bullstalin. Just ask the National Enquirer about that logic.”
Under U.S. law, in order to be guilty of libel, a publication must be shown to have knowingly or with malice disseminated facts that were false and defamatory. That’s what makes these lawsuits so hard to win. How can you prove that the news media in question knew the story was false, or that it was published with malice? Tough standard.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
The First Amendment requires that a public official suing for damages for damnatory falsehoods relating to his official conduct prove that the statements were made with actual malice. Otherwise, the court reasoned, public debate on important issues would be lessened. Citizens have the right to criticize their government officials.
“An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.” (Black)
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)
All nine members of the Court agreed that the First Amendment imposed some limitations on the application of state libel laws to public figures in addition to public figures. Four justices determined that the proper standard was whether the media defendant had engaged in “highly unreasonable conduct” and deviated from the standards of a “responsible publisher.”
However, five members of the Court went farther and extended the rationale of Times v. Sullivan to public figures. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren reasoned that there was “no basis in law, logic, or First Amendment policy” to differentiate between public officials and public figures.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/casesummaries.htm
The National Enquirer probably has been sued a lot, but the only successful case I’ve heard of against them by a public figure comparable to Rush would be Carol Burnett’s lawsuit in 1981. To further illustrate how difficult winning these cases is, you might recall that in September 2008, National Enquirer ran a story alleging that Sarah Palin had an affair with Brad Hanson, her husband’s partner in a snowmobile business. She never sued National Enquirer over the story.
It IS with malice when they are trying to prevent his commercial interests in buying a sports franchise.
Not everyone who is libeled sues over the matter. The British edition of Bill Clinton’s My LIfE cut some passages about Kenneth Star, as the British libel standard is lower, just as a precaution.
Want to make any bets about his having a successful lawsuit?
I know the types of judges who sit on the bench these days. No.
Public figures can sue, they just have to prove much more than you do under common law slander or libel because of the First Amendment. They have to prove “actual malice”, which means knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.