Skip to comments.
Conservative network files defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, MSNBC (OANN)
The Hill ^
| 09/09/19
| Zack Budryk
Posted on 09/09/2019 4:52:07 PM PDT by 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 companys 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
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: maddow; msnbc; oann; rachelmadcow; rachelmaddow; russia; thatsamanman; twitter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
To: yesthatjallen
Go for $100 million, then maybe you’ll get ten. Maddow is a professional moron.
2
posted on
09/09/2019 4:53:31 PM PDT
by
Veto!
(Political Correctness Offends Me)
To: yesthatjallen
3
posted on
09/09/2019 4:53:38 PM PDT
by
Ken522
To: yesthatjallen
4
posted on
09/09/2019 4:53:48 PM PDT
by
TexasGator
(Z1z)
To: yesthatjallen
“Maddow was using literally in a figurative sense...”
How about figuratively in a literal sense?
5
posted on
09/09/2019 4:58:43 PM PDT
by
Bonemaker
(invictus mane)
To: yesthatjallen
“counsel for NBC Universal said Maddow was using ‘literally’ in a figurative sense.”
Literally!
6
posted on
09/09/2019 4:58:48 PM PDT
by
Pelham
(Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
To: yesthatjallen
Kristiana Rouz interviews a noted figure in the news
7
posted on
09/09/2019 5:04:33 PM PDT
by
BigEdLB
(BigEdLB, Russian BOT, At your service)
To: yesthatjallen
Maybe we just need Common Sense Regulations on Commercial Speech.
8
posted on
09/09/2019 5:09:04 PM PDT
by
eyeamok
To: yesthatjallen
> counsel for NBC Universal said Maddow was using literally in a figurative sense
That’s why they get paid the big bucks.
9
posted on
09/09/2019 5:13:03 PM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(... this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.)
To: Bonemaker
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?
10
posted on
09/09/2019 5:19:16 PM PDT
by
Mark17
(Once saved, always saved. I do not care if some do not like that. It will NEVER be my problem)
To: yesthatjallen
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 .
11
posted on
09/09/2019 5:19:37 PM PDT
by
hal ogen
(First Amendment or Reeducation Camp???)
To: thoughtomator
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.
To: eyeamok
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.
13
posted on
09/09/2019 5:29:05 PM PDT
by
Phlyer
To: Phlyer
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.
14
posted on
09/09/2019 5:37:47 PM PDT
by
JudgemAll
(Democrats Fed. job-security in hatse:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
To: JudgemAll
. . . 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.
15
posted on
09/09/2019 5:51:58 PM PDT
by
Phlyer
To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
Literally!
16
posted on
09/09/2019 6:07:00 PM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(... this has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.)
To: yesthatjallen
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.
To: FreedBird
Is there anything stopping you from doing the research and posting it for us?
18
posted on
09/09/2019 6:29:49 PM PDT
by
tenger
(Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. -Will Rogers)
To: tenger
Just read Michelle Malkin’s new book will publish the groups who financially support open borders. The book can be pre-ordered on Amazon.
To: yesthatjallen
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.
20
posted on
09/09/2019 6:37:05 PM PDT
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson