(Sorry I could not post yesterday.)
The Dems are supposed to be the party of trail lawyers. Why not put 'em to work?
Why not sue Republican propagandists when they make untrue and defamatory statements?
I know that the courts grant great leeway when insulting comments -- even outrageous ones -- are made about celebrities and politicians. But such individuals are not the only targets of conservative liars.
Recently, Bill O'Reilly said that Planned Parenthood would encourage teens to have abortions because "Planned Parenthood gets paid for every abortion that they're involved with. I don't like Planned Parenthood."
It is certainly false and defamatory to suggest that profit would motivate the group to encourage teens to make such a serious decision. And O'Reilly capped off the falsehood with a declaration of malice.
Seems actionable to me. Maybe not a slam-dunk case -- libel is never easy to prove -- but I would still suggest that a case can be made. Of course, I'm not a lawyer; I'd like to hear opinions from those better versed in the legal arts.
7 comments:
The burden of proof for libel is high for a good reason -- the rich and powerful could terrorize the rest of us into silence.
Even if it were possible to sue over these comments, bringing cases on such grounds would be a very bad principle, because the tables could easily be turned.
Shutting down this blog, for example, on the threat of a lawsuit from a Michael Ledeen or a John Negroponte....
Well, there's your answer, Joe, encourage those defamed by G.O.P. propagandists to clear their names and Karl Rove will shut down this blog!!! For God's sake, fear-mongerers, at least put a name in front of those weak threats.
With the caveat that I don't have a law degree, either, Joe, the problem I see with encouraging lawsuits for every hateful and untrue remark thrown out by the Right is that the number of suits could be mamouth, even if the defamed only went after the most serious liars. Yeah, the Dem-loving trial lawyers out there need work, but do they need to go blind doing it?
You missed the point, Jen.
By all means, Planned Parenthood should respond and debunk the charge.
The issue at hand, however, is a law suit. If every accusation in the course of debate were legally actionable (if not provably true in a court of law), debate wouldn't be possible.
Even if the statements were provably true, only the very rich could afford speech, because the rest of us couldn't pay the legal fees.
geez, i've been trying to angle this one for quite some time, but especially since the swift boat vets. (aside: can anyone believe that sbv slimeball is suing kerry for keeping their 'mockumentary' off sinclair?).
my biggest concern is in finding a way to sue the general media, not just the small players. filing a class action suit with the aclu against the list of big media for violating my first amendment right to a free press seems pretty powerful to me.
and i've wondered about suing over the fact that they often withhold information that is damaging to the gubmint and empowering to the people, which seems equally actionable. but no way to do that.
but then i have to keep reminding myself that the first amendment only states that congress shall pass no law that abridges the free press (among religion and speech, etc.).
now however, there appears to be a potential avenue opening up (as one actually closes, but such is our world). congress is considering a federal shield law, but it's one that is just saturated with the 'source protection' debate that has put judy miller on a pedastal (and bestowed upon her the sjp first amendment award; see atrios and theleftcoaster on this), totally pedestrian and highly dangerous. not only does it appear that bloggers will not be considered 'reporters' and therefore not protected, but this bill will likely allow the likes of rove and libby to mislead, misinform, and propagandize with impunity, and the unprincipled shilling reporters will never suffer any consequence for being mouthpieces for the abusing government.
if you haven't noticed the last time you rolled over, we have some strange bedfellows in this traditionally liberal left notion of a shield law. novak, safire, bob dole (??) all pulling for it, and the sponsor is a repug; enough to give anyone pause, if not the willies.
so if a law like this ever makes it through, especially if bush were to sign it, you KNOW it's up to no good. and it would seem more than constitutional to sue. it would almost be fun.
geez, i've been trying to angle this one for quite some time, but especially since the swift boat vets. (aside: can anyone believe that sbv slimeball is suing kerry for keeping their 'mockumentary' off sinclair?).
my biggest concern is in finding a way to sue the general media, not just the small players. filing a class action suit with the aclu against the list of big media for violating my first amendment right to a free press seems pretty powerful to me.
and i've wondered about suing over the fact that they often withhold information that is damaging to the gubmint and empowering to the people, which seems equally actionable. but no way to do that.
but then i have to keep reminding myself that the first amendment only states that congress shall pass no law that abridges the free press (among religion and speech, etc.).
now however, there appears to be a potential avenue opening up (as one actually closes, but such is our world). congress is considering a federal shield law, but it's one that is just saturated with the 'source protection' debate that has put judy miller on a pedastal (and bestowed upon her the sjp first amendment award; see atrios and theleftcoaster on this), totally pedestrian and highly dangerous. not only does it appear that bloggers will not be considered 'reporters' and therefore not protected, but this bill will likely allow the likes of rove and libby to mislead, misinform, and propagandize with impunity, and the unprincipled shilling reporters will never suffer any consequence for being mouthpieces for the abusing government.
if you haven't noticed the last time you rolled over, we have some strange bedfellows in this traditionally liberal left notion of a shield law. novak, safire, bob dole (??) all pulling for it, and the sponsor is a repug; enough to give anyone pause, if not the willies.
so if a law like this ever makes it through, especially if bush were to sign it, you KNOW it's up to no good. and it would seem more than constitutional to sue. it would almost be fun.
I have recently started reading blogs and came across your blog about work at home stuffing envelope and wanted to let you know that it must take time and dedication keeping a blog going. I have a website about work at home stuffing envelope and it keeps me really busy. Looking at all these blogs I think I may need to start my own blog one day. Keep up the good work. One day blogs may replace TV and newspapers for those of us who spend our time on the internet.
Post a Comment