To: jmstein7
The dustjacket of Franken's book features a photo of O'Reilly between the words "Lies" and "Lying."While I don't practice defamation law, I seem to remember from my law school days that this could be considered "being painted in a false light." I seem to remember a case about a teenager who had his picture in the paper for winning a rodeo. Unfortunately, the headline said something to the effect of "Pedophiliac caught". While funny (I know I would have photocopied that and pasted it through the school), I know newspapers and publishers tend to be careful about this exposure. O'Reilly may have a heckuva lawsuit here.
7 posted on
06/02/2003 11:52:59 AM PDT by
MattinNJ
To: MattinNJ
I'm pretty sure that, in such a suit, Franken would be considered a "media defendant", and the "New York Times Rule" would apply. Thus, constitutionally, I believe that O'Reilly would have to prove "actual malice" to prevail. I'm pretty sure that their little public spat would be ample evidence of malice per se.
10 posted on
06/02/2003 11:59:02 AM PDT by
jmstein7
To: MattinNJ
Oh, I agree - a lawsuit BIG TIME. Franken was just pathetic - and Ivins wasn't much better. The 2 of them plus Michael Moore was the "fair and balanced" C-SPAN fare.
25 posted on
06/02/2003 2:15:20 PM PDT by
CyberAnt
( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson