Posted on 09/25/2014 9:05:39 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
The looney Left is after Rush Limbaugh again. They have a maniacal fixation with trying to destroy him because they don’t like what he says. The Left has always believed that freedom of speech applies only to them. Over the past sixty years the media has coddled and supported the Left by encouraging the belief that they are not subject to the rules and laws the rest of us have to live under. This delusion could be brought to a dead stop with one simple move.
A recent case in point involves a group of ten Leftist loons who have launched a “Get Rush Limbaugh off the air,” campaign. While this is not the first time this has been tried, it is different from past efforts because Rush is making it different: He is fighting back and the names of these people have been exposed.
The question now is, “What to do with this information?”
One aggressive response that Rush might want to consider is a federal lawsuit for “tortious interference with contractual relations.” Case law says you cannot actively work to induce a party to a contract to break the terms of the contract.
These ten people could be taught a lesson about what is permissible and not permissible when you are trying to strip someone of his Constitutional right to make a living and say what he believes in a public forum.
A bit of research reveals that, “ Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff‘s contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Litigation is a two-edged sword, with discovery and deposition and all that.
Lerch (Lurk) is that you?
And what exactly that is relevant to this issue does Rush have to hide?
Isn’t this a “Civil Rights” issue?
I don’t think Rush would want to tie himself down squabbling with the Lilliputians.
Couldn’t he also sue under RICO?
I think Rush would applaud some one else in the same position, but doubt he would do so himself, it could stifle him, especially if the court ordered he not talk about it, his ability to talk about it for him might be the greater revenge.
However for me as a listener, Rush doing something and winning such a suite would be the greater victory, than hearing him talk about it, on and on and on.
It is a wonderful tool, “tortious interference with contractual relations” that one can pull from the quiver once in a while but it usually strikes fear in the hearts of the opposition. Works especially well if you are a small company dealing with larger ones or an individual faced by a large well funded opposing force.
I can see the respondents requiring depositions and other court events from 11-2 every day trying to keep him off the air.
Hmmm. Conspiracy? RICO?
Names of these people have been exposed.
Like the sound of that it’s about time everyone expose the killers of free speech.
That will go the way of the Bohner lawsuit.
Maybe Carbonite could be a witness for Rush. Seemed to hurt them.
Except that one side will discover that their hard drives have crashed (again).
I isn’t simply a matter of a few individuals' tortuous interference with Rush. That is just a chip of wood being whipped by the wind on the surface. The reality is not that one individual (Rush) is being harassed, but that there is a systematic effort to prevent we-the-people from promoting our own opinions which conflict with the opinions which are promoted by journalism for its own interest.If you “hush Rush,” you suppress the broadcasting of my opinion on most matters. And you do not have any moral right to suppress my opinion. No title of nobility, and no priesthood status, gives you that right. And no claim of objectivity gives you that right, either. Because, as a philosophical matter, claiming objectivity is no different from claiming wisdom - if you say you have it, you betray the fact that you do not have it.
Anyone know who the 10 are so that we can express our “appreciation” for their efforts ... NOT!
No, Rush is white. He has no civil rights. Now if he were black .......
Rush published the Twitter Ten on his website.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/09/23/the_hidden_story_behind_stop_rush
Sorry, I don’t think Rush has standing to sue. At least not based on contract interference.
How can Rush sue about interference with a contract when he’s not a party to that contract?
Rush has a contract with the radio broadcaster. That’s it.
The radio broadcaster, in turn, has contracts with the companies advertising. If the radio broadcaster feels someone is interfering with the contracts he is a party to, then it’s up to the broadcaster to sue.
Is there something I’m missing here?
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.