100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: President Obama Could Sue Limbaugh for Libel and Defamation, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. There is no whining about Rush and Fox. They are not what they portray themselves to be, valid. That is a problem. Limbaugh is a sick individual. Sadly some people do not realize that. Fox is not a news station and some people think it is that is sad too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. There is no whining about Rush and Fox. They are not what they portray themselves to be, valid. That is a problem. Limbaugh is a sick individual. Sadly some people do not realize that. Fox is not a news station and some people think it is that is sad too. people have the freedom of choice. you can either listen and watch or not. other sources should improve their product and compete for listeners and viewers. that is the free marketplace of ideas.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. There is no whining about Rush and Fox. They are not what they portray themselves to be, valid. That is a problem. Limbaugh is a sick individual. Sadly some people do not realize that. Fox is not a news station and some people think it is that is sad too. people have the freedom of choice. you can either listen and watch or not. other sources should improve their product and compete for listeners and viewers. that is the free marketplace of ideas.. I added up all the viewers for so called "left" news stations and the amount of people watching fox is not more than them, they are not as great as they portray themselves to be anyway. The sad thing is that people actually believe them and believe it is news. That is false advertising. Neither Fox News Station nor Limbaugh are putting out what they say they are, that is the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Sun 02/07/10 06:10 PM
|
|
I get all my news from the 700 Club
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 02/07/10 06:28 PM
|
|
I get all my news from the 700 Club That is better??? I wasn't being a smart ***, I meant that as a legitimate question. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Sun 02/07/10 06:23 PM
|
|
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 Easy meat yo. LIAR: “LIMBAUGH: But he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father” http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/23/limbaugh-obama-arab/ SEXIST [LIMBAUGH] said that women love Hillary Clinton because they’ve “had two or three abortions,” that women “live longer than men because their lives are easier,” and that all women want is to be hired as “eye candy.” Limbaugh also regularly rails against feminism, the “feminization of this culture,” “feminazis,” and the “chickification” of America. Unsurprisingly, women don’t like Rush Limbaugh.” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/09/limbaugh-miss-america/ RACIST Top Ten at this link: http://rah.posterous.com/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes DRUG ADDICT/HYPOCRITE/CRIMINAL [LIMBAUGH]“"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on national television.” Rush pleaded out after being caught doctor shopping and acquiring his dope illegally. He did not go to prison as he suggested anyone should. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_3275.shtml ARSEHOLE All the above things and more make him that… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COAL BURNERS JAILERS ARE VERY LOW BROW AND HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE LAW OR ITS INS AND OUTS .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 02/07/10 06:48 PM
|
|
Like I said Obama has too much class to charge Limbaugh but he could and I would love to see it.
I would love for all and anyone to charge him with all the lies he tells. Most people won't do it because it would then make Limbaugh a martyr for the bigot's cause...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i get my news from jon stewart....
btw i switched to Fox during the SB and Hannity had his great fair and balanced debate...but there were 4 neocons to one "liberal" and they hardly let him retort...yeah that's some fair and balanced debate. I miss Alan Colmes making a mockery of Sean every nite, that was the only time i ever tivo'd that trash of a newschannel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i get my news from jon stewart.... btw i switched to Fox during the SB and Hannity had his great fair and balanced debate...but there were 4 neocons to one "liberal" and they hardly let him retort...yeah that's some fair and balanced debate. I miss Alan Colmes making a mockery of Sean every nite, that was the only time i ever tivo'd that trash of a newschannel. aka John Liebowitz... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must have been one of those kids who was constantly in the Principles office complaining that someone must have said something bad about him.I have lost count about how much whining Obama does concerning the media and negative press.George Bush had it 10 times worse and I never heard George bush saying we needed to boycott and silence the people who criticizing him.
You don't like people saying things about you,then find another job where you don't have to deal with public relations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must have been one of those kids who was constantly in the Principles office complaining that someone must have said something bad about him.I have lost count about how much whining Obama does concerning the media and negative press.George Bush had it 10 times worse and I never heard George bush saying we needed to boycott and silence the people who criticizing him. You don't like people saying things about you,then find another job where you don't have to deal with public relations. I guess you didn't read the OP huh??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tool the Liberals/ Progressives bring to bar most often is the LIE.
The big lie, dirty lie and the dam lie too. Like Goebbels said: “Tell the lie often enough and pretty soon they begin to believe it”. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read my lips,no new taxes oh yeah and New World Order
i did not have sexual relations with that woman....i deceived the american people Iraq has weapons of mass destruction its a "slam dunk". there were no WMDs Rush...give me some painkillers and a Big Mac value meal large please, oh yeah i make alot of money pissing off liberals haha in your face |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. There is no whining about Rush and Fox. They are not what they portray themselves to be, valid. That is a problem. Limbaugh is a sick individual. Sadly some people do not realize that. Fox is not a news station and some people think it is that is sad too. Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday. A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network. Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html#ixzz0exRW8ROK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must have been one of those kids who was constantly in the Principles office complaining that someone must have said something bad about him.I have lost count about how much whining Obama does concerning the media and negative press.George Bush had it 10 times worse and I never heard George bush saying we needed to boycott and silence the people who criticizing him. You don't like people saying things about you,then find another job where you don't have to deal with public relations. OR, stand up for your rights, and ensure that people learn to shut their mouths and to respect one another instead of insulting and trying to cause trouble. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every president has been attacked by the other side. Why would this be different? Because of who said it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama must have been one of those kids who was constantly in the Principles office complaining that someone must have said something bad about him.I have lost count about how much whining Obama does concerning the media and negative press.George Bush had it 10 times worse and I never heard George bush saying we needed to boycott and silence the people who criticizing him. You don't like people saying things about you,then find another job where you don't have to deal with public relations. Oh yeah? 
|
|
|
|
|
