Like Dan Rather using forged documents to attack George Bush?
Posted on 01/14/2011 10:00:35 PM PST by airedale
In order to prove libel and slander on the part of the media the bar is set pretty high here in the US. The material must be inaccurate/false, they must know it's inaccurate/false (I think it's not that tight) and then they went ahead and published it. The kicker is that they have to do it with malice. It's pretty obvious the media had no supporting information that Sarah Palin, the T-Party, talk radio and others had any connection to this especially when they first started spinning this. As time went on it became even clearer that there was no connection yet they continued to publish the links. So in the case of libel and slander what's MALICE?
There is a long pattern of the MSM falsely linking Sarah Palin, the T-Party and Talk radio to incidents of violence which have been false and obviously false especially in recent years. There has also been over the top rhetoric coming from all areas of the MSM as well as a history of coordination (Journal-list for example). Is that enough to show a malice as well as a pattern of malice?
They are trying to establish a meme just like they did in the mid 90s.
Back then, they were able to successfully create the meme that local militias are crazy people bent on destroying the country. Truth and accuracy were irrelevant as the meme gelled and stuck
P!ss on the Left-wing media.
P!ss on the DNC
And oh yeah... P!ss on Obama.
A couple of things the Europeans have right:1) loser pays legal system and 2) very strong anti-libel laws. Other than that they can pound sand when Sharia law comes upon them.
Libel is an unenforceable legal concept.
Those things exist in Canadian law. One good thing about our system even if everything else is going to crap.
they must know it’s inaccurate/false
. . .
They really believe to the depth of their souls that what they say about those of us on the right is true and accurate.
Like Dan Rather using forged documents to attack George Bush?
While it may be difficult to impossible to convict of malice towards a public figure, what about private figures? Each of us here has been vilified and libeled by these attacks.
Do people sneer at you as you get into your vehicle with the NRA sticker? Emotional distress. Has your car been keyed outside a TEA Party event? Physical damages. Have people at work screamed at you? Hazardous workplace.
The list goes on. Is there some enterprising young lawyer willing to start a class action suit against NY Times, Washington Post and their employees who engage in the libel? Or MSNBC and the hate crowd? CNN?
Or tie them up in millions of small cases all over the country.
The ability of someone like a Palin or Levin to force one of these libtards to spend a lot on lawyers and make their life he’ll can’t be missed as an opportunity.
Discovery would be much better. All their emails on the subject and about the targets both internal and external as well as their phone and meeting logs/notes. Great place to start depositions.
One more thing the British papers have also covered this and their libel and slander laws are significantly different. As I understand it you only have to show that it was wrong and that applies to public figures as well. Is MSNBC broadcast in the UK?
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.