Posted on 10/15/2009 5:12:09 AM PDT by SE Mom
Which public figure can be quoted as having said something bigoted and disgusting and it doesn’t matter whether he did or not because he might have? Who can Big Media brand a racist without checking the facts? Who has to prove he did not say something racist, rather than the accuser proving he did?
A pat on the back for anyone who guessed the answer: Rush Limbaugh (OK, the blog headline was a clue). From CNN to MSNBC to ABC, it’s been put about that Limbaugh said this:
I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
It’s also been spread around that he said this, about the death of the man who assassinated Martin Luther King:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honour? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
Trouble is, he didn’t say either of these outrageous things. And it wasn’t difficult to check, as protein wisdom shows here. They originated from, er, Wikipedia and Wikiquotes. Both quotes ended up in this book - a hit job that doesn’t cite any sources. They’re also included in this internet list posted a year ago and endlessly ripped off ever since.
The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism – proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
ping!
I love it that FReepers are using the foreign media now more then the Marxist US media.
Lynching is the correct word. White people are now getting wrongly accused and lynched by the race-baiters....somehow lynching white people today is OK, but we are suppose to still be outraged over lynchings that happened some 50 plus years ago.
He’s right about the racism charge being difficult to recover from. Liberal Howard Cosell never really recovered his reputation from his “That little monkey can run!” exclamation.
I hope he can sue the purveyors of such lies.
Very insightful comment, that.
No wonder they squealed like stuck pigs.
Isn’t it? :)
He can sue them. He has the law, and the financial means.
I hope he does. Only a libel suit to stop this nonsense.
That said, you can bet both discovery and trial will be a deliberate campaign of character assassination.
Pray God grants him strength, and us the wisdom to bear through it.
The only reason Olbermann said positive things about Limbaugh’s bid on Sunday night and the only reason Matthews half apologized for what he said about Limbaugh is that the parent company is afraid of lawsuits.
I thought this pondering quote was exceptionally damning to those trying to smear the guy:
Dan Calebrese asks why if Limbaugh really is a racist then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?
The guy talks for hours and hours a day, for decades, yet you have to fabricate stuff he said in order to stick it to him? Doesn't make a damned bit of sense.
It sounds as though they’re NOT well informed but still talk as though they are. Although...sometimes it’s a devil’s advocate set up- but I didn’t see them so can’t tell.
Make sure you tell your kids:
Wikipedia is crap.
It’s the easy way to look up basic info, but it often shows political and religious bias from the left, and in this case, Wikipedia intentionally maintained lies on its pages, even after being warned that they were directly perpetrating falsehoods.
Ditto!
And they should also look at Obama’s “team” in the City of St. Louis and the State of Missouri!
Mayor Francis Slay (D)
Controller Green (D)
Congressman Lacy Clay (D) Representing the City of St. Louis
Congressman Russ Carnahan (D) Representing the City of St. Louis
Governor Claire McCaskill (D) for the State of Missouri and predecessor of Governor Mel Carnahan who pushed to get the St.Louis Dome and the RAMS to St. Louis.
A number of very heavy duty supporters of Obama doing work within the City and connected to all these clowns.
This is cruel and unAmerican payback to a radio host these politicians can't touch. I believe they have put pressure on the owner of the Blues who was one of the partners bidding on the RAMS to dump Rush or their would be reprisals for him by virtue of the stadium where the Blues play being financed again by the City and State of Missouri.
WAKE UP MISSOURI. WAKE UP ST. LOUIS.
Harry Truman would be rolling in his grave!
The CITY OF ST. LOUIS IS #1 IN CRIME! MOST OF IT OCCURING IN THE AISLES OF CITY HALL.
My amateur lawyer sensibilties tell me he's a public figure and may have a hard time sueing for libel or defamation.
Except for one thing: The falsehoods directly affected a specific financial opportunity.....and he perhaps could sue for damages. And he could sue any organization that claims to fact-check their statements, including CNN and NBC, who ran with this, then were warned, then ran with this again.
Goodell might be in trouble as well.
you know, I have it on good authority that Rush has a loyal and growing internet audience in the UK. Will probably be showing up on some of their famous pirate stations soon.
I think Rush may have perfect grounds for sueing for tortious interference. It is an outside party to the contract that interfered with the contract, which is a necessary element.
Discovery would be much more limited on these grounds. I’d also sue Wikipedia and anyone else that promulgated the lies, but I understand that may not be practical in Limbaugh’s situation.
Rush has got to sue for defamation, and for HUGE amounts. Starting with Rick Sanchez, that St. Louis writer, and anyone else who applied quotes that were not his to his character.
I hope Rush looks into the connection that DeMaurice Smith has with Holder and Obama. I think that is where the real story is in all of this.
It’s not just White people. My friend Reese Hopkins was charged with rape, two weeks after he started showing up on CNN talking smack about Obama. We fully expect the charges to be dropped, knowing what we know before it goes to trial next month. He’s been in Rikers for a year awaiting trial!Then let the sueing begin
MARK
And what ever happened to Jimmy Snyder?
Sorta fell off the map after his comments, didn’t he?
But someone else can say something about ‘typical white people’ and get a total pass on it?
Wikipedia is great for looking up lists of things like spaceflights, stadiums, Indy 500 winners and such. It’s also nice to look up somone’s bio and external links.
But for anything political, it is a worthless, biased, pile of excrement. It is to be shunned for that purpose, except to keep up with the enemy and how “they” think.
I’m seeing rumors that George Soros is also in this ownership group and this was engineered to hurt Rush. If that’s true he may have some action against Checkett’s group. I hope he goes scorched earth on this.
First off, it isn’t Fox’s business to defend Rush.
Second, if they do go into full press defend Rush mode they will lose the ears of anyone still sitting on the fence.
By opening the issue to inquisitive examination instead of emotional invective laden point-counterpoint style arguements it requires people to at least pretend to think and pretend to make some sort of logical argument.
Fox isn’t an arm of the GOP or the mouth peice for C/conservatives. It just seems that way sometimes because they strive for some balance in the facts and opinion they present.
Agree totally.
Issuing a BIG ping so as many as possible read this piece.
Anyone reading the comment section following the writing? Notice the talking point for the nut-sos is now the "crips & bloods* comment, alone.
Someone OR something some time ago, I'll say during the Clintugula 90s, promised the scum of the Republic absolute protection against reprisal(s) for anything they say or said so long as it slandered [any]one or thing on the ideological right. That approval's taken off like a prairie fire in a wind storm and the law be damned.
OK Rush, ball's in your court.
Many millions --here & around the globe-- are a tad more than just curious to see if there's a set of fangs under the lovable fuzzball veneer.
Even though I’m confident Rush is fighting the good fight against these fabrications, it must still hurt him to see the NFL so up in arms against him, huge fan of football as he is.
Rush must be musing, “As football goes, so goes the country.”
Watch in a few years, when more NFL owners had hardships and will need to sell their teams, the NFL will then come to Rush on bended knee and beg him to buy a franchise.
Goodell has overstepped his boundaries as league commissioner by inappropriately involving himself in an ownership matter and should be promptly fired by the owners.
Considering the LA Times ran an article last year on how the NFL is cracking down on street gang hand signs, I'd say the "crips and bloods" comment is factual, not derogatory.
Conservative football fans should protest by boycotting NFL games.
That year will be 2012. Next year is an "uncapped" year for the NFL, i.e. no salary cap. Jerry Jones will go absolutely nuts after the 'Boys miss the playoffs this year, and will attempt to buy himself a championship.
The kink in those plans will be the lockout year of 2011. Jerry's going to be missing those fat TV checks that he needs desperately to pay the mortgage on Jerryworld.
IIRC, many league owners have leveraged themselves to the hilt for new stadiums and other goodies, banking on an ever increasing amount of TV revenues.
The bills are coming due.
Right here in Dallas we’re seeing it happen with Tom Hicks. He won’t be the last.
I totlly agree.
Limbaugh should sue them all.
“OK Rush, ball’s in your court.
Many millions —here & around the globe— are a tad more than just curious to see if there’s a set of fangs under the lovable fuzzball veneer. “
I’m sure there are a lot of things for Rush to consider before filing multiple suits. But I will be profoundly disappointed if he doesn’t. If we don’t fight these SOB’s, it just encourages more of the same behavior.
“And what ever happened to Jimmy Snyder?”
Just like with Rush, what the Greek said was not really racist. However, the way he said it sounded racist. What he was trying to say was that African slaves may have been captured and bred for physical attributes, and that may explain Black athletes’ successes.
Ungortunately, he didn’t say it like that. Even if he had, he may have been called a racist and been fired.
I was thinking the same thing last evening. Rush is a strong man and used to being called all kinds of names- but this is an exceptional beating he’s been given and I imagine he’s truly hurt and disappointed...
Simply more cannon fodder for the mother of all slander suits, *I* would think. Then again, can anyone be sure about anything anymore, insofar as "justice" goes in the Republic?
Let me throw this out there kev for you to give an opinion. having read your thoughts here for years, I respect what you have to say as a rule. Not schmoozing, I mean it. LOL
Not knowing your knowledge on the "Law", per se, I'm asking for a gut level opinion, based on life experience alone if that's all you've got. OK?
Q: How much of this obscene smear & the legal ramification(s) would you guesstimate the louse ridden leftists behind it all anticipated?
Secondary to Q1, given what's on record? Video tape evidence of said slanderous remark(s) et al; and, in the absence of one scintilla of tangible "proof" to buttress said slander and/or libel? What'd be their defense against Limbaugh's action to collect --substantial-- damages?
TIA, my friend. ;^)
So The Greek was actually trying to explain his view of black athletes’ superiority?
And that was racist?
“So The Greek was actually trying to explain his view of black athletes’ superiority?
And that was racist?”
It wasn’t inherently racist. They way he said it certainly sounded racist - something about the big black buck being put to the big black mama by the slaveowner.
Well of course you'd agree, you're a just & fair man my friend. LOL
"Limbaugh should sue them all."
Yes, but can he successfully pull it off and if so on what ground(s)?
I have to ask because it seems to me the law as most of us knew/understood it, if only incrementally, has been bent *&* twisted to successfully accommodate this kind of crap.
So a suit's probably not the slam-dunk I thought it'd be IF I know our Leftist scumbags, and I do.
That is to say, L, how is it the lice are as bold as they are? How'd that come about? Because any one with a nanogram of sense -& especially the quisling mediots-- have to know what they said was and is actionable.
The broadcast outfits got to have legal departments rivaling any private sector law firm anywhere on the planet, just shy of the USJD, y'know? Someone gave the miscreant offenders a green light to say whateverinthehell they wanted; which, they did and did so in unison. A familiar, oft used modus operandi. Capiche?
That's the part I'm really struggling to get my arms around.
I doubt they anticipated much, if anything, to that level. The reaction, while orchestrated, is essentially knee-jerk, following the standard "conservative = racist" playbook that was worked so well for them in recent memory.
Secondary to Q1, given what's on record? Video tape evidence of said slanderous remark(s) et al; and, in the absence of one scintilla of tangible "proof" to buttress said slander and/or libel? What'd be their defense against Limbaugh's action to collect --substantial-- damages?
Their defense is shoddy at best, and their primary hope lies in the high bar set for defamation against a public figure.
Limbaugh's legal team will claim that the the defamatory remarks were malicious -- not merely the result of poor reporting technique -- and that being forced out of the deal shows actual financial damage.
The counter-argument will be that the "reporters" relied on sources that would up being unreliable... yes, they should have been more thorough in checking for original sources, but that is the result of an error, not malice. On the financial front, they will attempt to make the case that an approval of the sale even without their intervention would have been unlikely; also, the generally poor track record of return on investment in sports franchises would indicate that claim of actual financial harm is overstated. Finally, and most ironically, they will argue that a finding in favor of Limbaugh would have a "chilling effect" on the media's ability to bring to light issues of public interest.
I think it boils down to whether or not Limbaugh's team can actually prove malicious intent. While in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is usually enough, with the high bar on defamation against a public figure, I think the plaintiff will need to go well beyond the usual standard to prevail.
“Yes, but can he successfully pull it off and if so on what ground(s)? “
I’m no lawyer, but IIRC one who is a public figure is more open to attacks than the average schmo. The “burden of proof” is higher. However, if Rush can prove damages, and outright slander, he should go for the jugular.
right.
Some pigs are more equal than others.
Its weird how some laws are only enforced for some and not others.
Looking forward to heaingr Rush in 40 minutes.
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.