The test for libel of a public figure is:
The plaintiff must prove that the information was published,
the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified,
the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation,
the published information is false,
and that the defendant is at fault.
As a public figure, Beck has to prove actual malice or that the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth.
It would seem all of these are handily met, but I’m sure they would argue a few things.
Perhaps the best defense for the people spreading this is no actual injury. I don’t know of anyone who actually believes it. Most people seem to pick up pretty quickly that it is satire. In addition, there isn’t and won’t be an investigation into the claim. His viewership, I believe, continues to rise.
It is also clearly parody/satire. I would think/hope that it is apparent to most people without reading the disclaimer.
It would seem they are pretty well against a wall if they were sued, but it already seems to be losing steam. Digg and Reddit were covered with it last week, but not anymore and usually when it does show up it is to say that it should be dropped.
I doubt a lawsuit would be worth it at this point. No money in it and it would draw further attention to it. The reward wouldn’t justify the costs.
Digg was covered with this story last week?