[lurk]

Litigation is a two-edged sword, with discovery and deposition and all that.

[PGR88]

Isn’t this a “Civil Rights” issue?

[Buckeye McFrog]

I don’t think Rush would want to tie himself down squabbling with the Lilliputians.

[murron]

Couldn’t he also sue under RICO?

[PoloSec]

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.

[Sequoyah101]

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.

[afsnco]

Hmmm. Conspiracy? RICO?

[Vaduz]

Names of these people have been exposed.
Like the sound of that it’s about time everyone expose the killers of free speech.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”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. “

That will go the way of the Bohner lawsuit.

[moovova]

Maybe Carbonite could be a witness for Rush. Seemed to hurt them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

[Let's Roll]

Anyone know who the 10 are so that we can express our “appreciation” for their efforts ... NOT!

[ConstantSkeptic]

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?

[Bibman]

What would 10 accidents look like? Could they be considered “Flukes”?

[Understand the stimulus]

civil rico...

[jmaroneps37]

Well here we are seven weeks later and Rush IS suing. Not the same grounds but it’s a start.