DU lawyers

[dsc]

At what point does someone like O'Riley's conduct cross over the line of malice or disregard for the truth? I can see him getting away with mistakenly saying a school district changing the words to Silent Night, but after he presumedly got a letter from the author the play informing him of the error he should be able to be sued for what he did on Letterman. Is there some reason he can't?

[Fridays Child]

1. I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess it crosses that line when harm results...

...from the lie.

[unblock]

2. lying isn't a crime

i'm not a lawyer, but lying in and of itself is not a crime, except in certain specific circumstances, such as materially relevant lies under oath, e.g.

publicly damaging someone can be a crime (libel/slander) but the issue there is more damage than lying. for example, if an ex-lover publicly broadcast something embarassing but completely true about you, that still might be libel/slander, especially if there was no point to broadcasting it other than to injure you.

[dsc]

3. actually it would be invasion of privacy

[napi21]

4. The line is very very low, almost invisable!

No matter what someone like O'Riley says, he's an entertainer. That's how Rush gets away with all the lies he spews every day.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've been involved in MANY business law suits. I learned a lot!

I remember when the financial reporter on CNBC said on their NOON broadcast "Word on the street is that XXXXX Co. is illegaly dealing with the Mexican mob."

My boss, the COO, call our attorney immediately and said "I want to sure that b*td the station, and everyone else associated with that damn program!" Well, it turns out, even though that announcement caused our stock price to plumet more than 60%, there wasn't anything we could do! See, the reporter had prefaced his comment with "Word on the street." That exempted him from all liability!

Isn't it a wonderful country?

[farmbo]

5. New York Times vs Sullivan (1964) no liability for false statements...

... against 'public officials' unless the slander (oral communication) or libel (printed communication)is made with actual malice with knowledge of its its falsity or with "...reckless disregard for the truth."

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).

Under the Sullivan standard, for example, O'Rielly is probably NOT liable for damages arising from his puffed- up comments about alleged actions by a school district to restrict Christmas celebrations...even if the statements are later proven to be false. (And its a safe bet that his Producers deliberately conduct poor or shoddy research, just so they can later claim the smear was not uttered with "...reckless disregard for the truth.")

Interestingly though, Rush Limbaugh blatantly violated even the lax Sullivan standard this Summer when he blurted this out about Cindy Sheehan:

LIMBAUGH: I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left."

This is a classic textbook case of actionable slander for which Cindy Sheehan--who was NOT a public figure at the time-- should sue Limbaugh.

The case will be worth tens of millions in compensatory and punitive damages, and its a dead- bang winner!

So much so that on his August 17 broadcast Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that he never made that statement-- yet another bold- faced lie.

(Aside to Cindy: PLEASE TALK TO A LAWYER ABOUT THIS! With the death (murder?) of the Fairness Doctrine in radio, we need people to aggressive challenge the bald faced lying by Rush and his ilk.)

[peacebaby3]

6. This is exactly right. And the fact that O'Liely lies so often actually

would make his defense stronger. It's almost as if he is "too crazy" to have malice. I'd like to see someone go after him, but they would probably lose. The bigger the liar, the less chance they have of being held responsible. Sad, isn't it?