The American Spectator

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 4:40PM

The newly litigious right has a few things to learn about civil lawsuits.

Maddow's report -- which may be incorrect -- is in no way defamatory. How could Shirly and Banister claim they were harmed by Maddow's report?

If her report is inaccurate, by all means she should correct it. But the threat of a lawsuit is childish.

SoCon| 8.14.09 @ 4:45PM

Sarah Palin was pretty successful in outing the pervert blogger, Jesse Griffen. He was fired from his job, let's see if the Palins sue him, too.

Looks like the ugly left can't get enough of their vicious slander and rumor mongering. If they won't stop the smears on their own, we'll have to make them.

Brubaker| 8.14.09 @ 5:17PM

Liberal Reader wrote "How could Shirly and Banister claim they were harmed by Maddow's report?"

You're kidding, right?

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.14.09 @ 5:23PM

Hi Quinn. Thanks for the heads up.
Please check my last comment on wigging out.
Thanks again

Interested Conservative| 8.14.09 @ 6:01PM

LR - It seems Brubaker gets to the point here, and only neglects to ask for your legal credentials.

It's clearly defamatory, actually libelous, and the only issues seems to be the privilege defenses available based on the PR firms status as a "public figure" - all elements from NYT vs. Sullivan and succeeding cases.

All that said, I'd be surprised if MSNBC doesn't issue an "explanation" or "clarification" to cover themselves from liability - which is simple and routine and removes the legal issue.

Still, seems like a stupid mistake made on the fly and just goes on the pile of errors which have largely destroyed their news credibility.

Angel| 8.14.09 @ 6:51PM

MSNBC's errors? Nah, purposeful propaganda on behalf of their Dear Leader: Billions in special federal bailout loans will do that. They are the cable station of leg tingles and shameless obeisance to statism--they are a disgrace.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.14.09 @ 7:15PM

Liberal Reader/Jeremiah/Leo/Troll Of Many Names:

You think death threats aren't "harm"?

I thought you couldn't get any denser, but you keep surprising me.

tonypal| 8.14.09 @ 7:18PM

Don't know what law school Liberal Reader went to, but as a practicing attorney, I can assure everyone that there is certainly a case to be made that Ms. Maddow's statement is slanderous. The statement clearly meets the first 2 parts of the test, that the statement was false and was communicated to a third party. The only remaining question is whether damages can be shown.

I love the fact that conservatives have finally decided to use the left's tactics to battle the left. For too long, conservatives have sat by while leftists have organized, intimidated and litigated. Now that you leftist clowns are getting a taste of their own medicine, such as what we're seeing at townhall meetings, they respond first with whining, then the inevitable invective about how we're a mob, racists, etc.

I for one hope and pray that leftists like El Presidente keep up the attacks on those who protest leftist policies, such as universal health care. I for one will do everything humanly possible to agitate those on the left and I encourage one and all here and everywhere else to do the same.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 7:18PM

Look. If you want to be a huge law firm, lobbying in Washington, you're going to have to put up with outrage and anger. If you can't stand the heat.

I read all your posts, but I don't see where anything is specifying how a law firm could sue a journalist for getting a story wrong, if that indeed is what happened.

You all are very misinformed about how journalism and the law work.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.14.09 @ 7:39PM

Thank you, tonypal, for completely debunking Liberal Reader/Jeremiah/Leo's comments... at the same time that he was posting them, even! How's that for serendipity?

Interested Conservative| 8.14.09 @ 8:08PM

LR - It' the difference between wrong (a mistake) and wrong (with malice). The law's very difficult for the plaintiffs, and you're certainly correct about the heat/kitchen/tolerance, BUT, the elements are all there for the firm to react aggressively to MSNBC.

Likewise, MSNBC has plenty of wiggle room and escape hatches, which is what they'll likely take to avoid trouble. It's very much easier for them to respond to avoid liability than to fight it out in court - easier as in much cheaper.

Still - tonypal pretty cleanly lays out the law, and how it comes to damages or defense, and the defense is much easier than arguing about damages.

To paraphrase a great democrat, MSNBC is entitled to all the opinions it wants, however well grounded or ignorant, but it's not entitled to make up facts which don't exist which could damage others.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 8:20PM

tonypal and Wandering Conservative --

tony, you yourself say you're not sure if damage could be proven. I highly doubt it.

Also, I'd like you to find a jury of 12 people who will sympathize with a Monster law firm like this.

Finally -- and you're right, I'm not a lawyer -- I'm not sure that someone criticizing this Gargantuan law firm that lobbies the government wouldn't enjoy some privilege given its public status.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 8:23PM

Interested et al.

I'm not sure tonypal IS right on the law, and he himself acknowledges that it would be difficult to quantify the damage here.

If I write: "Monstrously Gargantuan Law Firm A lobbies the government on behalf of corporation B" and I turn out to be wrong, where's the damage?

Sarah Palin and Todd Palin are getting divorced.

No?

OK, so sue me.

But for what? What damage have I done?

I think many of you imagine that the courts are eager to hear these kinds of cases. I really doubt they are.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 8:29PM

The law firm isn't being "accused" of doing anything illegal or unethical.

I'm sorry, fellas. Just no case here. It's not how defamation laws work.

IloiloKano| 8.14.09 @ 8:34PM

Liberal Reader responded with "if that indeed is what happened", so it's quite obvious he/she can't form a logical argument, given that any half-wit would concede error on the part of Madcow. Further debate with LESS THAN a half-wit is a waste of time.

Wanna bet the half-wit will dig himself even deeper now with another moronic post?

Nobama| 8.14.09 @ 9:21PM

Moronic posts are what LR/Jeremiah does best; in fact, the Axelrod astroturf troll is a specialist.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 9:25PM

IloiloKano --

Clearly your intellect far exceeds mine, although one would wonder why, if your mind were always seeking higher matters for contemplation, you'd content yourself with turns of phrase like "Madcow," which is puerile.

Setting this aside, I wonder how you conclude that it's "obvious" that an "error" would make Maddow guilty of a "vile smear" or defamation of any kind.

I'm more or less being philosophical here.

If a journalist could be sued every time he or she reported something that turned out not to be true, the courts would scarcely have time or space to deal with anything else.

Again, even though I'm a half-wit, I'm just asking: What's the damage? I don't see it.

Maddow did not accuse this law firm (you people do understand you're getting outraged on behalf of a gigantic law firm, I assume) of doing anything illegal or -- strictly speaking -- unethical. Once again: where's the damage?

ConservativeWanderer| 8.14.09 @ 9:38PM

More brilliance from LR/Leo/Jeremiah:

Maddow did not accuse this law firm (you people do understand you're getting outraged on behalf of a gigantic law firm, I assume) of doing anything illegal or -- strictly speaking -- unethical. Once again: where's the damage?

I see that LR/Jeremiah/Leo holds himself to the same "rigorous" standards of veracity that Rachel Maddow does.

The firms involved in the lawsuit are a media corporation--MSNBC--and a public affiairs firm--Shirley and Banister. The only law firm involved is the one that represents Shirley and Banister.

I guess Jeremiah/Leo/LR has studied this story the same way that his beloved Democrats have studied HR 3200.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 9:49PM

I've reread the linked piece and Mr Hillyer's piece. I confess it.

I just don't get it. Do these guys never watch cable news? This kind of commentary is on every cable talk show there is.

However, Maddow's commentary is far from an "incoherent rant." It's rhetorically temperate, at least.

The larger, more interesting question, is:

Since when are conservative a bunch of whining sissies?

All we hear from you guys anymore is whining, bitching and moaning. You're afraid ... You're scared ... Your feelings are very hurt.

O.K, whatever. I know it's tough.

What you all need is a nice root beer float. Get that float. Enjoy it, relax, take it easy. Calm down a little and stop being so paranoid.

Warrior| 8.14.09 @ 10:13PM

Liberal Reader, you seem to know as much about the law as Sheila Jackson Lee does about which part of the cell phone to speak into. You can use the teleprompter in chief move and start your next post with, "what I meant to say..."

Lonnie| 8.14.09 @ 10:43PM

Warrior, be careful what you say to LR/Jeremiah about Sheila Jackson, he'll start whining about your racism.

LibReader is a storm trooper in Obama's Thought Police Brigade; he knows what you're REALLY thinking.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 10:49PM

Conservative --

Clearly you misread what I wrote. I said you guys are getting outraged on BEHALF of a law firm.

Do you even know what you're angry about?

Did you read Hillyer's piece?

What you're saying is that a person engaging in Constitutionally protect speech should be sued for making a factual error that might inconvenience a gigantic law firm that lobbies the government.

And you think there's some kind of legal case here?

I'm telling you. You guys are just not even close on this one.

Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 11:09PM

And another thing, Wanderer --

You don't even address the substance of the sentence from my post you went through the trouble of quoting. (Why did you bother?)

Again: if Maddow isn't accusing this law firm of doing anything unethical or illegal, what possible grounds could there be for a law suit?

Just for kicks, why don't you think a second about what you are arguing. What is your claim? Why do you think the claim you are making is true? Explain your reasoning.

No one expects you to be Learned Hand. But you should try at least to make some kind of valid argument.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.14.09 @ 11:46PM

LR, you're an idiot, in case you didn't know.

The firm that was allegedly defamed by Maddow is not--I say again, and I'll make it as emphatic as I can to get it through that block of granite you laughingly call a skull, NOT--a law firm!

You even claim to have reread the original article and still you get the basic facts about the business that is at the center of this case wrong!

Now, can you comprehend that argument, or do I have to put it in even shorter and simpler words?

Interested Conservative| 8.14.09 @ 11:51PM

LR - I think I agree with some of your points, or maybe just one - namely, this is a very difficult case for the PR firm to win. That said, pardn me for being lawyerly, but there are several distinctions here.

First, allegations of unethical or illegal behavior may be grounds for defamation, but they are not necessary. Generally, the standard is lesser, i.e. bringing ill repute or damaging the standing of the aggrieved party through untrue statements. It's pretty clear that's Maddow's intent, as well as most of MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of the MSM punditry, and it seems the particular statement mentioned is untrue. But that's only one element.

The next few are the tough, if not impossible ones - namely the public nature of the pr firm, it's business, and the market it operates in. That's where MSNBC (and Fox et al.) have their defenses. The plaintiff has to show, essentially, intentional malice to an extreme extent. Most media outlets easily circumvent this with correction postings, ombudsmen, etc....

That's why I expect MSNBC will issue some very watery correction, just as Fox, others, do all the time.

All that said, the reason these cases are so difficult is precisely the first amendment and the leeway we (i.e. via the Supreme Court) want to give to political and other discourse.

Thus, what she did (by saying and showing) was slanderous (saying) or libellous (showing/printing), thus defamatory, with provable damages, however small or large, to the credibility and reputation of the firm (regardless of any given individual's opinion of them), BUT MSNBC has easily available defenses and the firm would be uneconomical in pursuing it further.

As for the burden on the courts, they're swimming in meritless claims, let alone long shots such as this. Addressing that is an entire other discussion.

Interested Conservative| 8.15.09 @ 12:14AM

One other odd feature of defamation law - it's the rare area where the defense may have to prove something is true to prevail - namely whatever the statement is which otherwise harms the plaintiff.

Almost universally in our law, certainly criminal, and most civil cases, the plaintiff (or state) has to prove the truth of the allegations or charges.

Another huge area of concern to conservatives and libertarians is the vast area of administrative law where public officials don't have to meet these standards. Again, that's another discussion.

tonypal| 8.15.09 @ 11:16AM

Liberal Reader:

You're in way over your head on this one. You've devolved into some of the most childish illogic I've ever read from you on this site, which is saying a mouthful. The fact that I point out it will be difficult to prove damages means I don't understand the law? Huh? Quite the opposite, as it tends to demonstrate that I'm well aware of the challenges faced by those attempting to prove slander.

As if to reinforce your ignorance of the law, you use the following example:

"Sarah Palin and Todd Palin are getting divorced.
No?
OK, so sue me.
But for what? What damage have I done? "

Again, the whole point is that the damages must be proved in a court of law. We don't know if any damages have been done until the complaint is filed, an answer is filed, interrogatories are sent out and replied to, depositions are taken, perhaps a case management conference is held with the judge and finally, at long last, the trial is held.

In addition, for public figures like the Palins, there is the extra challenge of proving malice, which is not necessary for non-public figures, such as the firm that we've been discussing.

I would suggest that going forward, you should try to limit your commentary to things you truly understand, such as rolling bones and applying for unemployment. Leave the rest of it to the adults.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.15.09 @ 11:56AM

Bravo, tonypal!

Alas, we know from bitter experience that LR won't listen to your advice. He'll still be spewing his idiocy here on a daily basis.

Oh, tonypal, if you ever get the urge to dip your toes into blogging, look me up. I'm always looking for people who can write and frame an article well to contribute to my little endeavor. :)

Liberal Reader| 8.15.09 @ 2:11PM

It wont be long now before I am on one of those "death panels". Then Ill have the power to put old conservatives out of their misery.

Nobama| 8.15.09 @ 3:09PM

Not if we get to you first, troll.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.15.09 @ 3:10PM

Ya know what's really scary?

LR probably would be considered to be "qualified" for one of His Obamaness' "death panels." After all, he's completely devoted to his Dear Leader, and that's the primary qualification that Obama seems to seek.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.15.09 @ 5:58PM

Since LR has posted other comments on other threads since tonypal and I thrashed him, and has not returned to this thread, I hereby declare him vanquished once again.

Thus LR continues his unbroken string of defeats.

tonypal| 8.15.09 @ 6:01PM

Liberal Reader:

You know, it's funny you bring up "those death panels." Isn't it curious that Senate Democrats removed something from a bill that Obama claims wasn't in there? That's a pretty neat trick.

Spicy Joker| 8.15.09 @ 8:55PM

I can't wait to see a lawsuit against Rachel Madcow, Keith Obamamann, Ed Schitz, and the rest of the loons over at MSNBC.

Sheila| 8.15.09 @ 9:04PM

Thank the Arctic Fox for no more "Death Panels!" ;)

Lynne Jacoby| 8.17.09 @ 10:03AM

Rachel Maddow misstated the date on which Shirley & Banister severed their tie with radical right wing lobbyists grassfire.org. EVERYTHING else in her 12-minute segment about Shirley & Piper's connections, associations and techniques was completely factual and correct. Shirley & Bannister may have been harmed by the 11.5 minutes of accurate, well-researched reporting by Ms. Maddow; however they were certainly not harmed by Ms. Maddow misquoting a date, and I do not think Ms. Maddow had any ill intent. It harms her most when she misstates facts. Shirley & Banister are out of line in trying to muzzle Ms. Maddow's criticism (which is apparently well-earned).

Patriot| 8.17.09 @ 3:29PM

Well, Maddow apologized all over herself for her "misquote," so MSNBC obviously knew she was wrong. Who are YOU to decide if Shirley & Bannister were harmed?

Get your facts straight, liberals--before you run off at the mouth.

Jesus H Christ| 9.2.09 @ 1:00PM

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany

Nobama| 9.9.09 @ 2:05PM

So what? We have Hitler in the White House right now.