Conservative network files defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, MSNBC (OANN)

The Hill ^ | 09/09/19 | Zack Budryk

[yesthatjallen]

Conservative network One America News Network (OANN) filed a $10 million lawsuit Monday against MSNBC and host Rachel Maddow for calling the company “literally … paid Russian propaganda.”

SNIP

The lawsuit accuses Maddow of “[knowing] this statement was false” and making it with the intent of damaging the company’s business due to its vocal support of President Trump. It claims that in response to a retraction request, counsel for NBC Universal said Maddow was using “literally” in a figurative sense.

Maddow based the segment in question, which aired July 22, on a Daily Beast article reporting that on-air OANN correspondent Kristian Brunovich Rouz was also writing for state-owned Russian news outlet Sputnik, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

"Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government,” Maddow said, summarizing the segment.

SNIP

[Veto!]

Go for $100 million, then maybe you’ll get ten. Maddow is a professional moron.

[Ken522]

I hope OANN wins …

[TexasGator]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=msnbc

[Bonemaker]

“Maddow was using “literally” in a figurative sense...”

How about figuratively in a literal sense?

[Pelham]

“counsel for NBC Universal said Maddow was using ‘literally’ in a figurative sense.”

Literally!

[BigEdLB]

Kristiana Rouz interviews a noted figure in the news

[eyeamok]

Maybe we just need Common Sense Regulations on Commercial Speech.

[thoughtomator]

> counsel for NBC Universal said Maddow was using “literally” in a figurative sense

That’s why they get paid the big bucks.

[Mark17]

Maddow was using “literally” in a figurative sense...”

How about figuratively in a literal sense?

Do you think they know what the meaning of the word “is” is?

[hal ogen]

It would be great if she wins a few hundred million . ..and received a clear on-air apology from this useless LIB lunatic and loser .

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Re “That’s why they (NBC’s counsels) get paid big bucks”. So does Madcow.

When she loses this case, she is going to being paying “OANN “big bucks”, and I don’t mean “men” which isn’t her thing anyway.

[Phlyer]

Maybe we just need Common Sense Regulations on Commercial Speech.

Of course, as with the gun laws, they would only apply to the private, law-abiding citizen regardless of the title or claimed intent (e.g. 'Commercial' speech).

Actually, we do need to revise the libel laws. In England (and in Common Law before our lawyers/judges corrupted it), the only thing need to 'win' a libel lawsuit was to show that the claim wasn't true, and that harm resulted. If that were the case today then a lot of the 'fake news' would go away - which would be a good thing.

However, in the US to win a libel lawsuit, you have to prove a thought crime. Specifically, you have to prove that the publisher had active 'malice' toward the harmed person, not that it just made a mistake (even a deliberate one) that harmed someone.

The equivalent in gun laws would be to say that you could shoot your gun down the street as long as they couldn't prove you actively hated the people who were hurt. US libel laws are that stupid.

So I hope they win the lawsuit because it was false and it harmed OANN. Ironically, in this case the 'intent' to harm seems easier to prove than the actual harm - which means the leftists would be better off if they were under English rather than US law.

[JudgemAll]

Especially regarding media. Media has a responsibility in influencing huge collectives, and they thus should not be allowed to resort to freedom of speech as an excuse.

[Phlyer]

. . . should not be allowed to resort to freedom of speech as an excuse.

This is one of the most misunderstood (deliberately by the leftists, I think) aspects of rights. A right is something that the government may not restrain prior to its exercise. It does not mean that there are no consequences for exercising it.

I absolutely agree that there should be freedom of speech and of the press = no prior restraint by the government. However, the correct "check and balance" on this is that speech (or media/press) that harms someone has consequences. Yet the leftists use the 'free speech' argument to protect themselves from the consequences of their lies.

To use the gun analogy again: I have the right to keep and bear arms. If I shoot someone (cause harm) I have to accept the consequences of that. The fact there might be harm/consequences doesn't mean that the government has the authority to stop me from carrying in the first place.

And, for both the lying press and an irresponsible gun user, the balance comes from making the consequences serious enough that a person is very, very careful about the exercise of their right. For the press, that means fact-check very carefully. For a gun user, it means be very careful to use appropriate force, and to prevent unintended harm.

[thoughtomator]

Literally!

[FreedBird]

Is Soros funding MSNBC and CNN? Someone should publish a list of who funds the Democrats and the Democrat Media? It is people who want Socialism.

[tenger]

Is there anything stopping you from doing the research and posting it for us?

[FreedBird]

Just read Michelle Malkin’s new book will publish the groups who financially support open borders. The book can be pre-ordered on Amazon.

[ChildOfThe60s]

The Hill has too much crap popping up on the page. Even with Ad Block Plus blocking 29 ads, the site is still too irritating to view.

I don’t put up with this anymore. And I refuse to go to sites that require me to turn off my ad blocker. All they have to do is make their ads static and stop with all the pop up crap. But no, they think they are making money because of all the fake clicks they get. I read that about 70% of the traffic sites get is fake click throughs. Internet advertising is all smoke & mirrors & fake clicks.