When is someone finally going to sue this SOB for slander?

[Archae]

The first amendment does NOT give MF'ers like Savage the right to slander anyone they choose.

Savage on "Billionaire George Goebbels Soros": "a money changer in the temple of truth"

Savage on MoveOn.org: "rat-bastard Communists"


Following progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros's June 3 speech at the Campaign for America's Future "Take Back America" conference, radio host Michael Savage dedicated the majority of the June 4 broadcast of his three-hour nationally syndicated radio show, Savage Nation, to blasting Soros.

In addition to labeling Soros "a dangerous crazy man" and a "lousy snake," Savage also compared Soros to "Hitler's media man" -- in reference to Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels -- and repeatedly called Soros "Goebbels". (Soros is a Hungarian-born Jew who survived the Nazi occupation of Communist Budapest.)

In addition, Savage accused Soros of "trying to encourage another terrorist attack "; he ranted, "ou are a deceitful, backstabbing, unpatriotic traitorous bastard in my opinion"; and he called MoveOn.org (to which Soros has contributed financially) "an organization of rat-bastard Communists."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406080004

[salinen]

1. Reagan spawn

[Archae]

2. No.

Even Reagan would have given Savage a kick in the ass out the door.

[evil_orange_cat]

3. because those are insults... not slander

AFAIK, it's not illegal to call someone names... at least I hope it ain't. :)

[Beatrix]

10. Right

Slander/Libel has to harm a persons reputation.

[NuttyFluffers]

11. Soros has a case possibly...

slander = false accusations against a professional that can ruin his business. to be seen as a professional though you have to be of a particular profession aka. medical doctor, lawyer, chef, etc. so to say to a M.D. and call him a 'butcher' is grounds for slander, so is caling a sous chef 'typhoid mary', but it is not grounds if you call a medical doctor such a bad cooker that all they make is slop and swill. and if it's true, by the way, there is no grounds for slander. the truth is undefendable against. this is an easy and rough explanation.

libel = written slander

defamation of character = applies to people who are not professionals, yet are dependent upon their 'character' (public image) to maintain their livelyhood. musicians, actors, dancers, artists, journalists, etc. fall in this category. the only exception to this is politicians. they are completely exempt from defamation of character, and they aren't professionals either so no defense from slander either(but many are lawyers, so if you slander against their old profession you aren't protected). the reasoning to this is politicians should have thick skin otherwise they shouldn't be politicians (or running for a slot, too) in the first place. so that explains why all that dirt against Ahhnold came out as soon as he confirmed his bid for governor. if it came out before he could have sued for defamation of character.

so Soros might qualify under slander defense for professionals, i don't know his degrees, or defamation of character, if his business livelyhood is dependent upon his character. accusations of "communist" and "terrorists" might disrupt his business holdings by shaking public confidence in his character.

such wild accusations could also be filed under "fighting words" too. another angle to sue the pants off of Savage.

but after reading David Brock's "Blinded by the Right," and seeing how Richard Mellon Scaife funnelled money to Drudge to overwhelm the lawsuit Blumenthal held against him, Soros is going to have quite a time against this right-wing sludge machine against Savage. I wouldn't be surprised to see Savage receiving oodles of support to tie up any legal challenge.

Hell, if i had the degree, time, and money i'd do pro bono work against these scandalmongers and curtail their abuse of the 1st amendment.

[Senior citizen]

4. Ad hominem attacks can get you kicked off DU, or a job for life

on right-wing radio.

Many years ago I tried to argue that name-calling and smears were a deterrent to rather than an example of free speech. The free speech defenders I was arguing with became so irate they deleted my posts.

[smiley_glad_hands]

5. I agree, but

the republicans have made this a dog eat dog world.

[Scoopie]

7. I wouldn't restrict it, either

I see your point, but I think the problem is more with common decency and decorum, not a free speech issue.

[Scoopie]

6. This is his opinion

and not cloaked in a statement of fact.
Besides, it's very difficult for a public official or figure to defend against libel or slander. He or she has to prove the person in question made the statement while knowing it was incorrect.

There are things I've heard the VRW say that I think could be labeled as libel, but the examples you posted aren't any of them.

Let them rant - it hasn't effected me and I started listening to Rush back in 1990 because he was "different." I still voted for Clinton, though, so obviously, I felt his opinions were wrong. (Can't listen to him, now, though. He's so self-edifying and egotistical. Can't stand that.)

[theboss]

8. It's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for slander or libel

Which is a good thing or else DU probably would have been sued out of existence in its first month.

[Beatrix]

9. Pretty simple

in order to sue someone for slander you have to have standing. (and actually the correct term for this is libel - slander is verbal) So let's say you are John Doe. Bob Smith writes (a blatant lie) that Jane Doe is a drug addict, hates america, and is a member of the Nazi party. You can't sue Bob Smith because he was not writing about you, and thus you don't have standing. Jane Doe, however, can do so.

In other words - the only way Savage is going to get sued for libel is if a party he is writing about sues him. You might want to encourage such people to do so.

However, I such an attempt would probably NOT be successful. Journalists actually have a far greater immunity in this regard than people who are not journalists. For one thing, he could simply say an anonymous source told him it was true. You've lost right there.

[DieboldMustDie]

12. It's ironic that the Nazis constantly accuse liberals of being Nazis.

:shrug: