Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: ElainaVer
That website offers a disclaimer at the very bottom, in tiny little print. Evidently, having lawyers after them forced them to admit this is all a pathetic joke. “Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven’t yet seen proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

Read the last sentence again. That’s the point. Read it a third time and ignore the name of the site itself, because anyone who believes that we’re trying to actually get people to believe Glenn Beck raped and/or murdered is *whoosh* missing the entire point. So don’t be dumb like a lot of people are. I greatly expanded this text because so many people *read* it, and *still* didn’t understand.”

I was typing as you posted, just read this -- I do not think this is enough to allow them an out, regardless the size of the font used. This shows intent, knowledge aforethought, as I just wrote, I'm not a lawyer but as a layperson, this looks to me more like an admission rather than a disclaimer. If so, if this actually does hang 'em, how stupid is that, eh?

50 posted on 09/09/2009 11:27:22 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: MozarkDawg

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.


101 posted on 09/09/2009 8:35:44 PM PDT by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson