[LoveUSA]

NYT v. Sullivan: With respect to the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable

So wouldn't this statement imply the reverse consideration is true?: "everyone" knew Rush to be provocative and "divisive" so the people who spread the lie saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable.

By having a court decide in this way, the drive-drunk-and-run-over media will put the cap on the public sentiment that Rush is nothing more than a rude, insulting, racist.

[Cboldt]

-- So wouldn't this statement imply the reverse consideration is true?: "everyone" knew Rush to be provocative and "divisive" so the people who spread the lie saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable. --

Limbaugh wouldn't have a case if the CNN reports were "Limbaugh is provocative and divisive." Both of those conclusions are in the realm of opinion. Limbaugh's case stems from the reports that "Limbaugh said 'quote' blah-blah-blah 'endquote'" where the quote is a complete fabrication.