Posted on 08/08/2012 3:49:31 PM PDT by SJackson
Sheldon Adelson is one tough Jew.
He basically made it possible for Newt Gingrich to get as far in the primaries as he did by bankrolling the Speaker to the tune of $10 million, before promptly switching his allegiance and his ample resources to Mitt Romney when the presidential nomination was decided in Romney's favor.
Democrats, especially Jews, were upset by Adelson's outspoken support for the GOP and scared of his resources and they knew there was no way Adelson would stop funding Republicans, so they decided to roll the dice on scaring Romney away from Adelson and his billions.
The National Jewish Democratic Council posted an item on their blog alleging that Adelson approved of prostitution at one of his overseas casinos.
Now, Adelson is fighting back by suing the NJDC for libel. His $10 million suit claims that NJDC, its president David Harris, and its chairman Marc Stanley, “crossed the threshold from constitutionally protected speech to defamation of a public figure” by publishing what Adelson says are false claims about his Macau operations.
NJDC's defense is that they were just trolling the Internet for dirt on a prominent Republican so what could be wrong with that?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If they could just find those missing tablets.
“NJDC’s defense is that they were just trolling the Internet for dirt on a prominent Republican so what could be wrong with that?”
The NJDC sure as hell can’t promote Obama’s record. So all that is left is digging up dirt. If that does not succeed they just make it up. You can see that in action with Obama’s latest lying adds.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Never mess with someone who has more attorneys than you have employees.
Never mess with someone who has more attorneys than you have employees.“Referencing mainstream press accounts examining the conduct of a public figure and his business ventures -- as we did -- is wholly appropriate,” declared the NJDC statement. Read more
The target of a libel suit should include the class of “mainstream press” as a whole, not just the individual who is quoting their libel. The way to do that is, simply, to sue the Associated Press and its membership individually.Wire service journalism homogenizes journalism and creates the “objective journalism” syndrome. That is, it creates the situation where each member of the AP claims that all members of the AP are objective. IOW, they all agree with each other, and they all agree that they are all objective. Which simply proves that none of them are even trying to be objective. You can’t even try to be objective without being open about any reasons why you might not be objective. And you can’t be open about reasons why you might not be objective while you are claiming to actually be objective.
Maybe one of our FR attorney's will weigh in, but I think that could be a problem. It's my understanding that the problem for a public figure is that in defamation actions actual malice has to be proved. Seems to we that when the NJDC admits they weren't speculating, or repeating a rumor or second hand nonsense ala Harry Reid (who has the sense to do it on the Senate floor), rather were looking for dirt to damage Adelson, they've done Adelson's lawyers a favor in establishing malicious intent.
The National Jewish Democratic Council posted an item on their blog alleging that Adelson approved of prostitution at one of his overseas casinos... Adelson is... suing the NJDC for libel. His $10 million suit claims that NJDC, its president David Harris, and its chairman Marc Stanley, “crossed the threshold from constitutionally protected speech to defamation of a public figure†by publishing what Adelson says are false claims about his Macau operations.
Some places in the world a lawsuit for defamation by a casino owner might well be laughed out of court if the issue was whether or not prostitutes were on the premises. My goodness, most of these places have professional gamblers (not that they want them ~ particularly if they are winners) and even criminals trying to cheat them.
I've never considered casino ownership to be one of those desirable occupations anyway.
It will be difficult for Adelson, as a public figure, to win a libel suit, but I must confess to a sense of Schadenfreude as far the NJDC is concerned.
This NJDC is the same organization that got a big laugh at their event four years ago when guest speaker Alcee Hastings (the impeached former federal judge turned 'Rat congressman from Florida) insinuated that Sarah Palin is antisemitic because she owns guns and hunts moose.
Like most organizations on the left, the NJDC has no standards of propriety in its political discourse.
>>>It will be difficult for Adelson, as a public figure, to win a libel suit
By what definition is he a public figure? Isn’t he simply a businessman that the MSM writes about a lot? Surely being a big political donor doesn’t make him one.
As you probably know, that legal notion of "public figure" in defamation suits stems from the famous Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, in the 1960s. The Court gave public figures a difficult burden of proof to meet in order to prevail in such defamation cases.
In that case, the Court made an attempt at defining what a public figure is, and that concept has been shaped further by many decisions in federal courts since.
I'm certainly no expert on this, but my intuitive guess is that Adelson would be considered a public figure under this body of case law, because he voluntarily engaged in political activities that he knew would quite possibly project him into the media spotlight.
Perhaps some of our FR lawyer friends can comment on this.
Most probable result.
I admit I can't remember a similar action from a public political figure, and Adelson is a political figure even if the other side did the defining.
That said, as to truth, the NJDC has apologized and withdrawn the charge, which in my common sense, not legal, mind might well settle the issue. Were it likely true they'd stick to their guns. As to malice which I understand is the big hurdle, I understand someone from the NJDC, I believe in the context of the apology, acknowledged that had no real knowledge, like Harry Reid's informer, simply went to google and searched for scandal, which they found and repeated. To my non legal mind, that's pretty close to malice.
Will be interesting to watch. I don't particularly like legal action in political campaigns, I think duels were a better solution to certain charges, but I'm glad he called them on it, regardless of how it turns out. Maybe people will think before making false charges, unless they have the privledge to speak from the Senate floor.
As to your representation of casino owners, while I don't disagree, I'd note that charges like abetting prostitution, don't know if it's legal in Macau, can be quite serious due the level and nature of government regulation.
Yes, moose like many game animals are kosher, but how would Alcee know? Here’s where I’d suggest how’d he know, he was eating ribs, but that must be racist, despite the many Freeper BBQ fans. I’ve never had moose ribs, they might be good.
Depending on the country and the culture. In some places the hookers might even be working off their court imposed fines for working “out of bounds” ~
Knowing what I do of the NJDC, the apology and withdrawal of the charge was not motivated by any sense of contrition. It was more like the story of their charge, and their absurd public demand that Republican candidates should take no more money from Adelson, cast them in much more of a negative media spotlight than they had planned on.
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.