Posted on 06/11/2009 3:52:31 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate
In recent days, David Letterman has repeatedly made comments about a juvenile private citizen (Willow Palin) on his nationally broadcast television show.
These comments were made with the full knowledge that Miss Palin herself, as well as her freinds and schoolmates, would hear them and were calculated to cause the utmost in emotional distress on the part of Miss Palin.
By using the public airwaves to broadcast these comments, David Letterman has violated Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110A, §2261A Stalking:
Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(2) with the intent—
(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);[2]
shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.
Furthermore, the unstated but inherit implication of further smears and attacks against the minor daughter of the Govenor of the State of Alaska amounts to Extortion - and in a much as these threats are communicated via the public airwaves are a violation of US Code Title 18, Part 1 Chapter 41 § 875 Interstate communications:
(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.
[1] So in original. Probably should be followed by a closing parenthesis.
[2] So in original. Provision probably should be set flush with par. (2).
Hey Nathan.
Normally, I would agree with you.
In this case however, I can not. And ONLY because it is an interstate crime.
I think there is a chance. See my post from yesterday below. Additionally , I do not think a fourteen year old is a public figure.
...............
I believe the David Letterman is not committing these libels merely because he is a New York liberal. I believe he has a motive to build his own ratings at the expense of Sarah Palin and her daughter. If this is so, it brings up a question of whether or not an action for slander might lie against David Letterman? Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the law as laid down in the Sullivan case to be that a public figure must show actual malice in order to prevail in such a case.
There might very well be documentary or testimonial evidence to the effect that this is a preplanned campaign to disparage the Palin’s to grow advertising revenue and ratings for letterman. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I think that constitutes malice.
Comments please.
ROFL!
“Officials tend NOT to act unless they believe it is in thier best interest. “
Thanks for the explanation, I prefer officials that act because of a sense of duty and honor.
You clearly know more about the law than I do and your case for malice, combined with the notion of what constitutes a "public figure" is strong.
I'd be very interested to see a case like this go forward. It seems like the lawyers would have to duke it out pretty good. Semantics matter, and to me this is clearly a matter of definitions according to law.
The weakness of your argument may be that every business tries to increase profits and therefore such an understandable goal may not constitute malice. My guess is that accusing him (correctly IMO) of having a political agenda, especially on public airwaves, might be a stronger approach but IANAL.
It seems like it's the actual defamation that is the active ingredient here and that must be proved first before you can attribute a motive.
I do as well, however ....
You are parroting Letterman's trumped-up-after-the-fact excuse -- which is is obvious BS.
Bristol was not at the game. Willow (14) was. Although he belatedly tried to make it appear so, There was no logical connection to Bristol in the way he told his "joke(s)". Willow was the obvious target.
Hey, maybe Davey should make some yuck-it-up jokes about his son and Perez Hilton! Yuck, yuck!
Making sexual remarks about a minor ought to get him some grief.
Pin the "dirty old man" meme on him, and make it stick.
I seldom watch the doddering, nasty pig--but the guy on youtube looks practically on death's door! He could pass for eighty years old. He needs to retire and spend more time with his ugly wife.
I'm sick of the the Jon Stewarts, etc., the nasty bitter leftist comics, their howling obscenities and blasphemies.
Maybe you wouldn't enjoy watching them get slapped around, but I'd pay a lot to get a ticket to the show.
Why the silence from A-Rod?
Does he have kiddie porn fantasies? IS that why Letterman hit on him? A-Rod spent time chasing Madonna- was he really into Lourdes instead?
Yeah - THATS IT -
Letterman was actually talking about A-Rod and Spritzer - not Palin!
HA!
Double HA!
What Letterman, whose appeal to so many I have never understood ... sort of like the French and Jerry Lewis... did was criminal.
If you don't believe me, go on national TV and say something very like it about one of Michelle and Barack's daughters. In fact, if Michelle had any class, she would as a mother of daughters, take Letterman, an outspoken supporter of her husband, to task for this remark. If she doesn't, she is in some way, presenting her own children as the butt of cruel and disgusting remarks.
C’mon folks. In their haste to have fun at the expense of Palin, Letterman’s writers failed to do their research. I don’t believe they would have used the joke if they knew it was Willow Palin at the game.
I hate this phrase, but “it’s time to move on.”
Uhhh - have you considered the possibility that the only one damaged by this is David Letcherman?
I don’t think he will ever live that one down.
If a dog barks at me as I walk by, is it necessary for me to drop onto hands and knees to bark back?
I suggest the Palin family reply “It would be wise to keep Willow away from Letterman.” to be the proper squelch.
“Remember all the speculation about Chelsea being Web Hubble’s illegitimate daughter?”
It was garbage, everyone knows Janet Reno was the father.
;-)
Oh - good point - more than one person was involved in this so we can add conspiracy as well!
As to your point “they didn’t know” - well, that *may* have been true the first time - it definately was not the second. Further - Palin’s trip was THE talk of the show on both days and provided a lot of lines - they KNEW who was there and to whom they were refering.
I suggest we stay out of this and let the Palin family handle this matter in the way they see fit.
Who is holding him accountable?
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.