Posted on 10/15/2009 11:29:53 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Radio host Rush Limbaugh is interviewed on the sidelines before the start of the NFL AFC championship football game in Pittsburgh.
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.
Limbaugh has repeatedly denied making the statement. On his radio show on Wednesday, he said, "They continue to spread the false, fabricated quotes and lies, and people continue to comment on them. So I'm faced with the dilemma, what do I do with this?"
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Dja think? Whadda we do without experts.
What to do is to SUE Huberman and any others who used that unverified quote to slander you.
I would love to see this happen. Love. Love. Love.
I didn’t think conservatives had rights.
Tortious interference occurs when person “intentionally damages” the plaintiff’s contractual or other business relationships
(Been there, done that, and got the “perp” fired for it)
Ain’t going to happen. First of all, as a public figure, Rush has almost no legal standing for libel or slander. The idiots using the Wikipedia data will just claim they did their industry standard due diligence, such as it is, and be able to skip away.
Then he has to prove that he was harmed financially by not getting a part of the Rams. Ain’t going to touch that one.
However, if I were Chris Matthews, I’d be paying a full time staff to keep my Wikipedia page clean before someone puts some nasty rumors about him for the world to see.
Quotes are FAKE but ACCURATE
Anyway that’s what Dan Rather would say
Nothing you can do that can’t be done.....
All you need is love....and some money. Go Rush, stick it to the communaziracebaitors!
He has grounds, he has damages, and with those he gets a wide-ranging field for “Discovery.”
He doesn't have to take it and does have recourse.
Plus they may have broken a few people with disability laws as well.
There simply is no possible way for Rush to prove he never, ever said what is alleged. I'm not even sure anyone limited the quote to "Rush said this on his radio program". That would take hours upon hours upon hours to prove, but at least it could be proven.
I want to see him go directly after the elite’s favorite frothing racists - Sharpton and Jackson. I also want the black racist players in the NFL to pay for using their positions in the NFL for race hate and character assignation on “whitey.” This is an opportunity to rub the klan with a tan’s face in their own puke.
If I remember correctly, some celebrities have won libel suits against tabloids. Rush has a much better case. We will see.
If he has spoken that they are false publically in the past, he sure does. He can make many claims but the key is to force those who quoted him to prove their quote valid. Limbaugh does not have to prove that he didn't.
And you know what I have to say to those who claim that Keith Olbermann was initiated into manhood by his own mother! Foul calumny. All of it!
Now we are talkin’! Go after CNN. This manufactured rage against the NFL is, well, manufactured and idiotic.
Sure would be entertaining!
Go for it Rush!
I would love it if Rush outbid the group of investors, and bought the Rams all on his own.
Ownership of an NFL franchise has to be approved by the League. Like to see the current owners join the suit since they will suffer if the potential pool of bidders is arbitrarily limited.
sue them! sue them for everything they have! Sue them till they have to sell their houses! Sue them till they have to sell their caes! Sue them till they are penniless and have to go to homeless shelters to even get something to eat!
As I mentioned on a thread about this yesterday, there is a lot of bad information about Discovery going around and it is an overrated step. Discovery doesn't give one side or the other unfettered access to all information the other side has. The only thing you can access in Discovery is what the other side plans to bring in as evidence.
For example, let's say you sue me for giving you bad milk. You can't demand my refrigerator in discovery unless I plan to use it in my defense. You can ask for it, but all I have to do is say that I don't plan to bring the refrigerator in as a piece of evidence in my defense.
This isn't a criminal case where evidence can be accessed with a subpoena.
Not true. Many public figures have sued for slander and won. It simply takes a higher threshold (demonstrate intentional malice) for a public figure than for the general public.
Oh, BS. Rush already has a giant microphone and has been using it to deny these claims. The loss of an ownership stake in an NFL franchise could run into the hundreds of millions--go get your money, Rush.
Yep, I agree.
But Rush will be able to show malice and conspiracy, so the standards he needs to meet as a public figure will be met.
Then he has to prove that he was harmed financially by not getting a part of the Rams. Ain’t going to touch that one.
Actually, rather easy. He has to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, (51%) To do that, he simply introduces the annual financial results of the other teams.
Closing arguments would be sooooo much fun, as would cross.
They have to show a reliable source for the quotes. They might claim that they heard it on his show, for instance. Rush needn’t “prove” anything, it is incumbent on them to show that they could in good faith have believed what they said.
Carol Burnette for starters...
Being bullied out of the Rams ownership damage could take years to even get the numbers to prove Rush's side, if there's any profit at all. The way teams are being run now, there may not be any profit to sue about. Kind of like complaining about missing a ship that sank.
I didn't get that Rush suing anyone over this was completely off the table, just for the time being it is. I'm sure he's talked to his legal eagles about this.
Rush says that his legal team is studying this, to see if they can really win. If so, I am sure they will go ahead with a law suit. He doesn’t want to jump in and say what is really happening on his side. Can you blame him? Go Rush. He did get one call today from a Seattle Sea Hawks player who was pi**ed at the NFL and the people slandering Rush.
I think he definitely has legal grounds.
SUE THEIR MISERABLE ASSES OFF.
Contrary to liberal beliefs, the law DOES apply to them too.
Public figures have a pretty good history of suing journalists for libel and slander. Example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/203779.stm
http://www.holymoly.com/celebrity-news/peter-andre-wins-libel-case-against-people21239
http://www.theinsider.com/news/946500_Ozzy_Wins_His_Libel_Suit
http://www.theinsider.com/news/2299772_David_Beckham_Wins_Libel_Suit
The tough part is that, as a public figure, he has to prove actual malice.
I think he may be able to do so in this case, though.
I'm glad it works that way :) Thanks!
The fact of the matter is in America, defamation suits are difficult, even very difficult to win. The power and primacy of the First Amendment has been upheld throughout the history of the country, and several Supreme Court rulings the last 30 years have made it that much harder for plaintiffs to prevail in such cases.
It would cost Limbaugh millions to litigate such claims with his chances of success suspect, at best. I would add, however, that in this particular instance, Limbaugh easily meets the threshold for injury. I think it could be easily argued that he has sustained real and tangible losses based on this lost opportunity. And, it would be equally easy to tie this lost opportunity to some of the more outrageous and inaccurate quotes that were bandied about this last week.
If word leaks out that Limbaugh is speaking to Lin Wood, you can expect a forthcoming lawsuit. Wood is probably the most successful attorney in the country with these kinds of cases.
The keys are Intent, Foreknowledge, and Loss.
He has to prove he has a financial loss- pretty easy due to the lost contract.
He has to prove the statements were intended to bring the loss- also pretty easy many who made the statements made it pretty clear their intentions.
He has to prove foreknowledge that the statements were false- not as easy however if there has been cases of him shooting these down or challenging these statements before, that may also be closed.
Malace is harder because it is a subjective term. Intent is the legal angle on that.
Those cases were all litigated in the UK - a country that has much more relaxed protections on free speech. Defamation suits in the US are exponentially more difficult to win.
Just guessing but what if dissing of the Pitt player was a ploy to help Pitt in that year, knowing how the rest of the ‘’experts’’ would likely react and they took it hook line and sinker, Pitt had a good year that year and Rush is a big fan of Pitt. Just guessing.
I think he might have a case. The public figure standard will make it harder for him, though.
I sure those who libeled him will use the defense that the quotes were published in a book. If they were doing a straight,neutral news story, that might be enough. Malice would be difficult to prove, in such a case.
However, they were making commentaries and publishing opinion pieces, with the specific aim of discrediting him and undermining his bid to become an owner of the Rams. Also, the fact that the book did not cite any sources for the “quotes” will hurt their defense.
I think those who continued to spread those “quotes” after they had been pretty much debunked might be in more trouble than those who used them earlier on. If Rush can show that someone continued to use those “quotes” after they knew that significant doubt had been raised about their authenticity, I think they will be in a heap of trouble.
I’d love to see him invest some of the millions he was going to invest in the Rams on hiring the finest lawyers to sue every media outlet, news personality and columnist who spread those false quotes.
It would have just the right kind of "chilling effect" on the sort of antics that pass for "news reporting" these days.
If they can't produce audio of this alleged quote (and they can't because they made it up), Rush should own the entire assets of the people who repeated this story.
He has the same standing as anybody whose personal affairs have been materially damaged by false and libelous statements.
No the burden is on the news people to show that they had a reasonable belief that he said. If they later find that he didn’t you would expect a retraction. I expect all sorts of retractions to be appearing.
I wonder if he could sue in England. For instance, CNN is available in England.
I think that Rush has said that he already sent out letters to each of the “sports reporters” and anyone else who repeated the lies to cite a source or make a retraction.
Actual malice is a specific legal term, and is generally a requirement for any case of libel or slander involving a public figure.
He will have to prove that either someone knew the quotes were false, or published/disseminated the quotes with reckless disregard as to whether the quotes were true or false.
Discovery can be incredibly wide ranging. It includes things that never make it to court. Mine were court-sanctioned fishing expeditions.
In your example, I want the names, health certificates and inspection results of every entity that supplied you milk for the past year. I want your customer list. I want all records of health inspections you have had. I want records of all your employees. I want their health records. I want your records from any food sanitation courses you have taken or not taken. I want any citations, health inspections, etc. you have ever gotten for anything of this nature. I want the records from anyone you have hired to clean your place or repair your refrigerators. I want to know who (what person) delivered the milk to you, who delivered it to them, all their records, etc. What dairy did the milk come from? Where are their records, inspections, etc? I want the records from whomever maintains your refrigerator.
Remember, it is a basic tennant of law that justice is served when all parties know the most possible information about a case, and I want it all!
As John Hindracker point out, CNN does a fact check on a SNL skit, but can’t be bothered to fact check their own newscasts.
Apparently they hold SNL to higher standard than their own reporters.
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.