President Obama Could Sue Limbaugh for Libel and Defamation, and Likely Win

With America's Free Speech rights, libel and defamation cases are hard to win, particularly when the comments' target is a public figure. That's why celebrities always bring libel cases in the U.K.'s more accommodating courts. Nonetheless, it seems Rush Limbaugh may have gone far enough in his attacks on President Obama to meet the tough American standards. Limbaugh claimed, among other inflammatory things suggesting that Obama is a failure that other people always covered for, that Obama didn't write his own law review article while at Harvard Law.

To win a libel suit asserting that Obama did in fact write his own article, Obama would have to show the accusation was false, and that Limbaugh said it with actual malice. Proving the statement false is pretty easy, according to a former Harvard law classmate. But what about actual malice? While many might think Limbaugh's actual malice toward Obama to be self-evident, the standard is "reckless disregard" for whether the statement was false. Rush reckless with the truth? What would Obama's odds be of proving that? I can't imagine we'll find out, as it's hard to see the President filing suit over this.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/latest-legal-news-should-obama-sue-rush-for-defamation/19347499/



I know the president has too much class to do it but wouldn't it be nice!!!!!

At least one lie of the millions he spouts would get justice

Scrapping the absolute bottom of the barrow saying that Rush lies about anything. What you bleeding heart liberals cannot recognizes is that Rush is the absolute best . Be he a liberal he would still be at the top.

First off
Second

To believe that, how sad!!!

Did someone say Rush???

I know the president has too much class to do it but wouldn't it be nice!!!!!

^lmao....ok...I wish he would, maybe he should be sued for all his unrealistic false promises....that everyone knew couldn't be kept, and yet got caught up in the hype

My I ask - what’s your definition of class.

Anyone dumb enough to try this would set up a very bad precedent. Besides, what Rush does pales in comparison to what editorialists used to do before giant corporate media. Smear campaigns are just a part of American politics. If the anti-Rush left would just come up with a decent case against him, people would listen. As it is, y'all just come off as crybabies and hypocrites. The Independents and libertarians are the only ones in the media who have any credibility left.

The best at what? Being an arsehole? A liar? A sexist? A racist? A drug addict? A criminal? A hypocrite?

how do you know when you've an arguement with a Liberal ?...they call you a racist...

Considering that it is true in Rush's case, I guess you wouldn't know if you are arguing with a liberal would you?

You wouldn't know a liberal if one bit you anyway so you have no place to talk.

The best at what? Being an arsehole? A liar? A sexist? A racist? A drug addict? A criminal? A hypocrite?

You have made six or seven accusations against Rush, why don’t you site one example for each

Theres one part of the law that you missed . It has to of cost him something . MONEY . Other wise it's just an insult .

That is not true.

how do you know when you've an arguement with a Liberal ?...they call you a racist...
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

how do you know when you've an arguement with a Liberal ?...they call you a racist...
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

If you listened to Rush like I do then we both would knew that Dick Chaney balance twenty five chicks when he was in the house and back in 92 Rush indorsed Slick Willie.

Hell, Rush wouldn't know a liberal if one bit him either.

Anyone who disagrees with a right winger is a liberal, which isn't accurate. Many different people disagree with right wingers. Not just liberals.

Talk about one sided view, in a righties mind there is only them and liberals in the world...lol

how do you know when you've an arguement with a Liberal ?...they call you a racist...
HOW TRUE
AT least he doesn't censor people .

the man is effective. otherwise no one would care what he says. Fox news is effective.. otherwise no one would care what shows they produce.

liberals can't compete.. so they whine and complain..

it's really getting rather pathetic, to be honest..

Oh.. and by the way..

In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander