Rush's Wikipedia Libelist Traced to Law Firm and Guess What?

[Chuckiechan]

Rush's Wikipedia Libelist Traced to Law Firm and Guess What?

69.64.213.146

Quote:

And that’s where you’ll find this: a Wikiquote contributor who devotes basically his entire time on the website posting quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, and other conservative boogeymen. At just after 6:00 AM GMT on July 20, 2005, he posted this to Rush Limbaugh’s Wikiquote page:


“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” [2/21/03]

Three minutes later, though, he fixed it:
“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” [4/23/98]

April 23, 1998 was the day James Earl Ray died, thus making “Godspeed” sound like a more accurate statement.


Now what does all this have to do with anything? Because eight minutes before uncorking that whopper and trying to tar it to Limbaugh, this vandal posted this quote and attributed it to Rush:


”I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” [3/14/03]

I would presume there are no ethical issues here...? I hope Rush sues them. But I doubt he can, since conservatives have no rights in Obama land.

[Pexster]

Anybody can sue anybody in this country. Please point out anything that says a conservative cannot file a lawsuit.

Whether one prevails is, of course, an entirely different issue. As a public figure, Limbaugh has a very high bar to clear in order to prove he was libeled.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

Whether one prevails is, of course, an entirely different issue. As a public figure, Limbaugh has a very high bar to clear in order to prove he was libeled.

In this case, he can show actual monetary damages. That is a major difference between public figure libel and print libel.

The point of the article is a democrat connected law firm is generating libelous comments about Rush Limbaugh. Coincidentally, the are a litigation firm with this kind of litigation on their shingle.

Law firms do not do these things, regardless of what you think of lawyers.

Side bar:
The is talk in Britain of a libel lawsuit, since it was published there. Interesting test of internet distribution and libel laws in other countries.

Personally, I doubt Rush would sue. But I think this is winnable if he sues the law firm, and then forces CNN, and the others to issue a retraction. That would be sweet revenge in that it forces the CNN and others to admit they published unvetted comments. (reporters check and verity sources. Or at least they used to.)

[Pexster]

Monetary damages are not the determining factor. As a public figure, Limbaugh would have to prove malice. Historically, this is a tough standard to meet.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

Monetary damages are not the determining factor. As a public figure, Limbaugh would have to prove malice.

The malice is the false statements attributed to him, but the libel is the news media repeating them without verifying whether they are true or not.

Damages are a no-brainer. He planned to invest "X" dollars in the team, with an expectation of "Y" dollars of eventual value. He is (was) part of a partnership, and was a non-manging member. The value of the team was "XY"million. The value of a winning team is "XYZ" million. So damages are arbitrated between these ranges, weighted by his fractional share.

But bottom line, he has a case but won't sue. Rush is not a crybaby. This just raises his profile higher than ever, and makes Obama look smaller than ever.

Obama? Yes. The head of the NFL is Eric Holder's good buddy, and a member of the transition team. Definitely a short chain of command. Rush is going to beat the crap out of the administration with it. They'll wish he would sue!

[The Real Bingo]

I think he's about even. After all, I don't think he'd be as popular today - or as wealthy - were it not for the left-wing moonbats picking apart his every word and giving him free publicity.

[Pexster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

The malice is the false statements attributed to him, but the libel is the news media repeating them without verifying whether they are true or not.

This is just factually incorrect. False statements do not equal malice.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

False statements do not equal malice.

It does when you include the word "the".

Quote:

the false statements attributed to him

[Cmptr-Gy-Dv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

Monetary damages are not the determining factor. As a public figure, Limbaugh would have to prove malice. Historically, this is a tough standard to meet.

they lied face it it's normal behavior by those you support,

and Like I said on the other thread I hope rush hangs them all,

just a thought from an idiot, see ya

[tony_j15]

Quote:

This is just factually incorrect. False statements do not equal malice.

Very true. I'd suggest someone needs to read up on First Amendement case history.
Malice is extremely difficult to prove for a public figure.