[MattinNJ]

The dustjacket of Franken's book features a photo of O'Reilly between the words "Lies" and "Lying."

While I don't practice defamation law, I seem to remember from my law school days that this could be considered "being painted in a false light." I seem to remember a case about a teenager who had his picture in the paper for winning a rodeo. Unfortunately, the headline said something to the effect of "Pedophiliac caught". While funny (I know I would have photocopied that and pasted it through the school), I know newspapers and publishers tend to be careful about this exposure. O'Reilly may have a heckuva lawsuit here.

[jmstein7]

I'm pretty sure that, in such a suit, Franken would be considered a "media defendant", and the "New York Times Rule" would apply. Thus, constitutionally, I believe that O'Reilly would have to prove "actual malice" to prevail. I'm pretty sure that their little public spat would be ample evidence of malice per se.

[CyberAnt]

Oh, I agree - a lawsuit BIG TIME. Franken was just pathetic - and Ivins wasn't much better. The 2 of them plus Michael Moore was the "fair and balanced" C-SPAN fare.