CNN (among other news outlets) attributed racially inflammatory quotes to Rush Limbaugh that the talk radio host never said. These quotes fanned the flames of opposition to his participation in a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams, and Limbaugh was subsequently dropped from the group of prospective owners. CNN’s Rick Sanchez has apologized and, perhaps legally relevant, confirms that CNN made no effort to confirm the quotes attributed to Limbaugh. Is this sufficient to establish “reckless disregard” for a libel suit?
Ryan Waxx says:
No, because the press has super-special rights that no private citizen has.
October 17, 2009, 8:43 amrpt says:
Is this a serious question after Sullivan and its progeny? Limbaugh as victim because his proposed business partner dropped him in the face of opposition from the most conservative group of owners anywhere with some sensitivity to drug abuse issues? Add to that the libel-proof plaintiff concept. He can’t handle being on the receiving end of comments that pale besides what he doles out. He really should sue so that he can be deposed.
October 17, 2009, 9:06 am11-B/20.B4 says:
I submit to you that CNN’s staff eat kittens at their company barbecues. I read it on a post I just made on Wikipedia, someone call the press.
See? When I say that it’s a joke (the humor is subjective, perhaps). The media can ACTUALLY DO THIS. I would hope there is some sort of consequences.
October 17, 2009, 9:08 amruuffles says:
Yeah! I mean, c’mon, it’s not like they’re specifically named in the First Amendment or anything.
October 17, 2009, 9:10 amsashal says:
Please, please, Rush, sue…
October 17, 2009, 9:16 amMust be fun to watch when it all will blow back on the racist lying distortionist fascistozoid blowhard Goebbels..
anonymous says:
No because the “reckless disregard” standard means they had to deliberately be trying to sabotage his reputation (and thus, his group’s bid.)
They weren’t trying to do that, it was just commonplace media negligence.
They could argue, bolstered by some of the inflammatory racial statements that are on the record, that by merely adding fake quotes to the fire they have indeed fanned Mr. Limbaugh’s volatile reputation — in a time when that type of popularity is taking Glenn Beck to new heights.
If Mr. Limbaugh was the (late) Paul Harvey … maybe. Maybe they could show that there was a deliberate intention to sully a reputation that was otherwise squeaky clean.
Mr. Limbaugh, though, rode a wave of controversy to become a public figure, and although a journalist always has the responsibility of checking their facts and quotes, there was no reckless disregard, merely plain negligence, and anyway — how much hurt has really been done by the misquotes?
Are people (players, owners, union reps, football consumers) really changing their minds about Rush, now that it’s been proven he never said that exactly about slavery or black people? Nope — his reputation amongst blacks and other minorities probably was shaped long long ago, and not by those false quotes.
Poor guy got burned by the fire he was playing with. I almost feel sorry for him — even bullies hate being the last picked for a team, and Rush kinda got asked to leave and let the kids play their games without him at all. And he didn’t even get the satisfaction of taking his ball from them before going home.
October 17, 2009, 9:19 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
“CNN, however, as well as the other cable newsers, were distracted by the prospect of a six-year-old boy’s falling to his death live on camera, so Rick never got to apologize to Rush.”
Ha ha.
rpt, I don’t recall seeing drug abuse issues brought up anywhere. What was brought up was the fake quotes. Maybe I’m really out of it, but I suspect that it probably would be a good thing if people refrained from lying about each other.
If Rush is really so wretched, why was it necessary to make up quotes out of whole cloth?
October 17, 2009, 9:23 amDan says:
Probably not, but what about the person who originally put the quip into Wikipedia?
October 17, 2009, 9:30 amanonymous says:
If Rush is really so wretched, why was it necessary to make up quotes out of whole cloth?
That’s the whole point. It wasn’t necessary, and it wasn’t done by the media. Thus, no intentional disregard. Mere negligence, by the industry standards, and who doubts that the standards have dropped so low in recent years, that not too many news organizations verify every quote before running with it, in these Insty-News days.
Maybe I’m really out of it, but I suspect that it probably would be a good thing if people refrained from lying about each other.
So you want to be a hardass about this whole thing, and try to put Rush off the air and out of business? Let him spew, I say!
Btw, who was the anonymous blogger who allegedly added those quotes to Rush’s wiki page way back when? A dittohead fan looking for controversy, perhaps? That’s who the witchhunt should be focusing on, not the poor practices of the newsmedia and lowering standards for delivering “news”.
October 17, 2009, 9:33 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I suppose that you are now calling Rush a liar. Can you back this up?
Also, if the news media want the American public to understand that they print random crap and take no responsibility for the veracity of their communications, that’s fine. I suppose they’re not in a deep enough downward spiral as it is. That should just about finish them off.
October 17, 2009, 9:37 amtamerlane says:
I’m amused by the lefty wingnuts posting here who claim that Rush is just getting back what he served out. Anyone who ever watched his show would be aware that he never has to and never does make things up. He is a master of letting his opponents skewer themselves. His commentary is almost always directly based on a video or sound clip or well-cited quote. Oftentimes Limbaugh’s only addition is a raised eyebrow at some particularly arrant piece of nonsense. He might share Dave Barry’s mooto: “I’m not making this up!”
October 17, 2009, 9:40 amDaniel Chapman says:
Ahhh yes… “Fake but Accurate.” Hope that works out well for CNN’s defenders.
And by the way, I haven’t heard anyone (especially Rush himself) mention a possible lawsuit over this. This is probably just the Conspiracy mulling over a fun legal question that will never see a suit filed.
October 17, 2009, 9:41 amfishbane says:
CNN appears to have mentioned quotes attributed to the man in one of those stupid email forwards. That the quotes in question cannot be confirmed does not mean that he never said them – it would not surprise me at all that someone who has talked for a living for so long could have said something that isn’t recorded (Does even Limbaugh claim to have recordings of every episode he’s made?)
That said, let’s assume he’s right, and a couple of the quotes are made up. I find it hard to believe that the damage suffered at the hands of a private group of mostly rich Republicans denied his membership in their club solely based on those quotes. He has a rich enough history of race baiting that is verifiable to make anyone nervous. And that’s before you get to the pills and the sex tourism.
So sure, CNN screwed up. News at 11, man bites dog. I have a hard time believing malice given his recent history of claiming metaphoric anal rape at the, er, hands of our new black overlord. Those words are undeniable, as is his history of making… interesting claims about race in relation to sports.
October 17, 2009, 9:45 amkmc says:
Limbaugh is undoubtedly a public figure and can only prevail upon a showing that CNN acted with actual malice in publishing the story. Sullivan says that actual malice requires a showing that the press acted with the knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information. In this regard, media outlets have no duty to investigate the accuracy of their tips before publication. Failure to investigate constitutes negligence, but not actual malice. If CNN had a bona fide belief that the information it was using was true or that its source was reliable, then it could not have acted with actual malice. Whether or not CNN’s faith in the source was bona fide is a fact-specific inquiry. First appearances suggest Limbaugh wouldn’t have that strong of a claim. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this type of ‘unfair’ criticism is the price that public figures pay for all the benefits of their fame.
October 17, 2009, 9:46 amrpt says:
Laura: The NFL is sensitive to drug abuse issues, and RL has a history of such. CNN did not fabricate the quote. Was CNN’s reliance on wikipedia reasonable? The quote is consistent with many other public statements RL has made. He could not show general damages to reputation under the libel-proof plaintiff defense because his reputation includes a racial component consistent with the apparent statements. His audience listens to him because they like this sort of thing. The burden is on him to show falsity and actual malice. If he believes he is injured in this regard he has the resources to sue any one. Notwithstanding Citizens United, I would like to see Floyd Abrams or his equivalent depose RL in a procedure where RL would not control the mute button. Good luck to him and his sense of entitlement to the perks of NFL ownership.
October 17, 2009, 9:48 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I get that, but you are the only person bringing that up. The outrage was about the quotes.
You’re kidding, right?
I disagree. Rush isn’t politically correct and never claimed to be. That is a far, FAR cry from saying that slavery had its merits.
Er, it’s my understanding that the NFL ownership group approached him.
October 17, 2009, 9:53 amanonymous says:
I suppose that you are now calling Rush a liar. Can you back this up?
Not my cup of tea to follow what he says, but here’s one:
Rush calls women feminazi’s. I know feminists, and plenty do not share that label. Thus, he lies when he calls women this for fun and smears plenty of other groups.
“Halfrican-Americans” — I know biracial people, and plenty are 100 percent Americans. Thus, he lies in perpetrating this label.
Look, I could go on, but I don’t care to play those games. Mr Limbaugh is constructing his own reality and doesn’t want to mix with plenty of others of us out here. Fine. But minorities also have the ability to say no to him too.
That’s too bad he’s clinging to the false quotes caused this meme. Nope. His reputation, not false, is that he’s divisive deliberately and a professional business like football doesn’t want to touch him.
Let it die easy, because the more Rush fans try to make it all about the false quotes, the more statements directly from his own transcripts will be pulled. People like me, who don’t listen, will get to hear more crap spewed, and we won’t think any better of him for the few, false ones attributed to him.
For example, I think it’s been checked that this is indeed a true Rush quote:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Let the man play his game and his money off that, and let the NFL police their own reputations as well.
October 17, 2009, 9:55 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Also:
a href=”http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/the_search_for_the_wikipedia_l.html”>The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist
I don’t think your dittohead theory is going to bear out.
October 17, 2009, 9:55 amanonymous says:
Anyone who ever watched his show would be aware that he never has to and never does make things up.
So tamerlane, you agree with this then:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Facts please. Not just opinions based on …
October 17, 2009, 9:57 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I find the term “feminazi” distasteful, myself. This does not make Rush a liar. Ditto, “halfrican”, which I think you misunderstand his use of anyway.
A “lie” is when a person asserts something that deviates from the facts. A person can say something that you personally disapprove of, without that demonstrating that the person is a liar. “Jerk” or “jackass” might be a more appropriate term.
October 17, 2009, 9:58 amerp says:
Limbaugh has been on the radio for 20 years, had a TV show, has written a couple of published books and has spoken in public countless times.
If there were any instances of his saying racially insensitive things about blacks, you better believe they would be quoted with citations.
There aren’t any. That’s why these ridiculous “quotes” were manufactured.
He has the means to bring this issue to a conclusion. I don’t think he should sue, but he should find out who the hacker, if there was one, at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and expose the whole filthy network of left wing lunatics.
October 17, 2009, 9:59 amcaliforniamom says:
When my kids were in middle school they were told by their teachers, “Don’t use Wikipedia as a source for your research papers or I’ll give you an “F”. It’s not a reliable source”. I think a judge could take judicial notice that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore establish ‘reckless disregard’.
October 17, 2009, 10:00 amanonymous says:
Your link is faulty, Laura.
Personally, I don’t care enough to even read more.
But the fact of the matter is, plenty of people like me will think that it’s all just a game, and suspect that the false quotes could have come from either camp.
That’s the game they’re playing, apparently without knowing how to put out fires when they do indeed catch air and get going.
October 17, 2009, 10:00 amanonymous says:
I think a judge could take judicial notice that using Wikipedia as your only source is in fact ‘reckless disregard’.
Doubt it, according to First Amendment law.
October 17, 2009, 10:02 amRushFan says:
“The quote is consistent with many other public statements RL has made.”
What outrageous reasoning: so because liberal ideology holds that essentially conservatism = racism anyway, it must not really be slander to conflate the two concepts!
Newsflash: 50% of the country agrees with what Rush actually says, whereas 0% agree with those statements attributed to him.
October 17, 2009, 10:02 amanonymous says:
If there were any instances of his saying racially insensitive things about blacks, you better believe they would be quoted with citations.
There aren’t any. That’s why these ridiculous “quotes” were manufactured.
No … he’s just been blessing puppies, and sending out flowery bouquets to new mom’s on the air.
Halfrican American
The McNabb controversy
the recent Sotomayor slurs
“bloods and crips”
Really — all these quotes I’ve been reading from the sidelines — he never said ANY of that? Never touched on inflammatory racial topics at all?
Well bless his soul! Mr Limbaugh is indeed getting a bum wrap, when really he’s just the second coming of Mother Teresa. I hear he even gives talks to public groups who want to hear him … FREE.
Glenn Beck’s got nothing on Rush Limbaugh, and now I’m starting to think all that coverage about OxyContin abuse was all just people trying to discredit him too. Who knows what’s true these days, with Old Media adopting the factchecking standars of the New??
October 17, 2009, 10:06 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Here.
Thanks for admitting that you’re part of the problem.
October 17, 2009, 10:08 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Can’t speak for others, but I never said that.
Telling that you think that a white person must be the equivalent of Mother Teresa to be acceptable.
October 17, 2009, 10:11 amanonymous says:
Newsflash: 50% of the country agrees with what Rush actually says, whereas 0% agree with those statements attributed to him.
Ah, but what percentage of the football following public agree with Rush Limbaugh — that’s the bottomline business decision here.
I suspect it’s much less than 50%, but even if 10% of people are ticked off by his fact-based opinions, that’s 10% too many for the NFL to lose as fans. They don’t need Limbaugh’s type of entertainment interferring with their business model. Disproving any quotes or trying to defend him is not going to change that.
I recommend mycitration for those burns and stop playing with fire if you can’t handle the backdraft.
October 17, 2009, 10:12 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Do you all remember Eric Holder’s speech about race discussions in America?
Why in the hell would we try to have honest discussions about race? It’s toe the PC line or else. So what’s the point?
October 17, 2009, 10:14 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
The football following public troubles itself with the political purity of the NFL owners? Who knew?
October 17, 2009, 10:16 amanonymous says:
Never touched on inflammatory racial topics at all?
Can’t speak for others, but I never said that.
Telling that you think that a white person must be the equivalent of Mother Teresa to be acceptable.
Lol. Lovely little Laura — up early here to defend Limbaugh, but totally missing the point. (You ever thought of going into the InstyNew Media analysis/spin business?)
I can play your game: “I NEVER SAID a white person had to be the equivalent of Mother Theresa to be acceptable.” Listen: I “accept” Rush Limbaugh exactly as he is (not how I’d like to be making my money, but to each his own)
Why do you defenders of Mr. Limbaugh have to sugarcoat him now, and play as though people don’t like his reputation based on some faulty slavery quotes?
The McNabb statements — those were enough to turn plenty of fans off, and can anyone now tell me those were false?
You’re defending, not a choirboy here, but an angry man who didn’t think that while he might gain the world through his angry words, he might lose out on other important things: like credibility as a businessman with others who want to work with him.
Boo hoo hoo. Again, I recommend mycitration for those burns and stop playing with fire if you can’t handle the backdraft. Maybe you could personally apply it yourself “laura” to ease his hurting parts.
October 17, 2009, 10:19 amodinbearded says:
As for the “McNabb controversy,” Rush was merely providing his opinion as to why Donovan McNabb was (is) so highly regarded by the media, when there were doubts as to his actual accomplishments. It wasn’t about McNabb per se, only that he is overrated (an opinion held by many sportswriters and fans). Rush stated that the media was rooting for a minority to be a success. Not that the media could ever really be accused of that, though.
October 17, 2009, 10:19 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
“laura”
Scare quotes?
ROFL.
I’m in the Eastern time zone – this does not qualify as “up early” for me.
October 17, 2009, 10:21 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Oh, and -
“little Laura”
Check with your feminist friends. I think they will tell you that your use of the diminutive is very, very un-PC.
October 17, 2009, 10:21 amBrett Bellmore says:
So what? That’s the standard media defense any time they knowingly quote a liar, but it doesn’t mean they don’t know they’re passing on a lie. Quoting liars is HOW the media tell lies. The liars know it, too: There’s a whole industry out there generating lies the media wants to tell, so that the media can pass them on.
Proving they knew this was a fabrication when they used, or that they intended to hurt him with it, might be tricky, but that’s what discovery is for. I think Rush should go for it.
And, you know, Rush has a rep for this sort of thing? Yeah, it’s a rep created by past lies about him.
October 17, 2009, 10:23 amanonymous says:
The football following public troubles itself with the political purity of the NFL owners? Who knew?
Lol — oh please, now swing the discussion into the naughty words JLo used in that video. “If she gets in, then they have to take Rush too!!!” *whine*
And to answer your question: even Rush KNEW, as he claims he warned the buyer’s group that he suspected his past comments (Bloods and Crips anyone?) and current racial analysis on air might cause a stir.
These attitudes aren’t a side thing for Rush, like Jimmy the Greeks’ innocuous comment back then or even what that dj said about the “nappy headed ho’s”. This is is schtick — lock stock and barrel. JLo at least can still sing and dance; aside from his crude analysis and labeling of minorities and others, what does Limbaugh have?
At least other pundits following in his footsteps have a law degree, or something secure to fall back on, should they one day be burned by their own comments too. Rush can’t quit his moneymaker though, just to get the change to play in the NFL big business league. He knew they didn’t want him there; he’s just pissed that it became so public, his dumping.
October 17, 2009, 10:25 amanonymous says:
And, you know, Rush has a rep for this sort of thing? Yeah, it’s a rep created by past lies about him.
Lol, you guys will believe ANY-think it seems. Sure, without all the “lies”, he’s conducting a Jerry Lewis telethon on air every day… lol
Somebody please tell me though, I’ll stick with just this one quote:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Is Mr. Limbaugh saying it’s a lie he said that one? If not, go sit down. They have obvious reasons for not wanting him as a business owner, even a promised partial silent one, in that league.
Repeating:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
And please, don’t tell me he gets a pass and should be accepted by the NFL because he was just voicing an opinion (which of course he should be free to continue to broadcast) and not a “fact”. Duh.
October 17, 2009, 10:29 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Then how come they approached him, and cleared him, and then backed off when the media lies started?
I think I’d like an apology for that “little Laura” thing. I just turned 49 this week and I don’t feel like having my head patted. Not holding my breath.
October 17, 2009, 10:29 amanonymous says:
“little Laura”
Check with your feminist friends. I think they will tell you that your use of the diminutive is very, very un-PC.
I’ve seen you around before, Lovely Little Laura. Something tells me you aren’t little, nor are you a “laura” either.
Nothing wrong with that; pseudonymns are cool and acceptable. But please, don’t take offense on behalf of your … delicate gender, eh?
October 17, 2009, 10:31 amDave N says:
Not to jump into the argument between “anonymous” and Laura(southernxyl), but someone calling him/herself “anonymous” sneering at Laura’s nom de blog is more than a little bit rich in its irony, if not nauseating in its hypocrisy.
October 17, 2009, 10:35 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Okay, you are a complete joke. I have a blog going back several years. It is linked to right here with my name. But you can’t be bothered to do any easy, superficial research, can you, before you throw out your unsubstantiated slime. “Anonymous” indeed.
October 17, 2009, 10:37 amanonymous says:
Good advice — that not holding your breath thing. No apology to come: we don’t play the game that way anymore, in these New Media times.
Then how come they approached him, and cleared him, and then backed off when the media lies started?
They never cleared him. Duh. They just assumed his money and desire to keep the Rams in St Louis was good enough for them. Never checked with popular/minority sentiment outside their own circles, I suppose.
And please stop beating the drum that a few misquotes are all that’s keeping your man out of the NFL ownership business. Where are all the people jumping on board — “oh, he didn’t say that about slavery — well me and my Halfrican-American football loving friends and our feminazi female followers say, let Rush play at the ownership thing then!”
Not gonna happen. Because once you get past the false quotes, your run smack dab into this:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Gonna take the Laura’s a lot more than 4 downs too, to get past that one and advance his bid upfield… Even if St. Louis loses the Rams, there’s some kind of dirty money on principle you probably want no part of if you don’t want a divisive league (or country.)
October 17, 2009, 10:38 amDave N says:
Laura,
maybe “anonymous” could get a job as a fact-checker for CNN.
October 17, 2009, 10:38 amProf. S. says:
Pointing to industry standards is not conclusive of the applicable standard of care. It may be indicative, but it certainly is not conclusive.
Two words: Vince. Foster.
Translation: I couldn’t come up with 2 actual examples, so I just identified two humorous labels I disagree with (one of which I’ve never seen before of heard attributed to him) and hope that you’ll find more examples to support my unsupported argument.
October 17, 2009, 10:40 amSteve says:
So on a list of 10 quotes attributed to Limbaugh, 2 or 3 of them were fabricated, and the argument would be that he lost this business opportunity specifically as a result of the fabricated ones and not the others? Good luck with that lawsuit. Yeah, NFL owners didn’t care a bit about his comparison of NFL players to the Bloods and Crips.
I think Limbaugh would be wise to keep this dispute in the court of public opinion, where his defenders can get away with sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending Rush never said ANY of the things attributed to him, by dint of their amazing power to refuse to click links.
October 17, 2009, 10:40 amanonymous says:
Okay, you are a complete joke. I have a blog going back several years. It is linked to right here with my name. But you can’t be bothered to do any easy, superficial research, can you, before you throw out your unsubstantiated slime.
Heck, anybody can set up a blog, or a commenting profile, these days…
Lol @ unsubstantiated slime. Just my opinion, not a “fact”. Why so insistent upon “research” anyway — am I really keeping you from getting yourself an NFL team based on slime, or is it that you’d rather spin, spin, spin than addressing the Blood and Crips comment?
October 17, 2009, 10:41 amanonymous says:
Laura,
maybe “anonymous” could get a job as a fact-checker for CNN.
Ho ho. Maybe when you’re done making jokes, friend, you could tell us what you learned about that Blood and Crips comment.
New Media, indeed.
October 17, 2009, 10:43 amsecond history says:
They have obvious reasons for not wanting him as a business owner, even a promised partial silent one, in that league.
There is no way Rush would have been a silent partner; like the scorpion and the frog, it would have been against his nature.
October 17, 2009, 10:44 amanonymous says:
Not to jump into the argument between “anonymous” and Laura(southernxyl), but someone calling him/herself “anonymous” sneering at Laura’s nom de blog is more than a little bit rich in its irony, if not nauseating in its hypocrisy.
No so sure why it bother you (can’t personalize??), but the fact is: Anonymous is not my real name.
Nor is Stevie Miller. Or any other handles I post under.
Now back to the accuracy of that Blood and Crips quote…
October 17, 2009, 10:45 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, I totally have maintained that blog since 2005, scrupulously making up all KINDS of stuff so I could masquerade as a woman.
OK, for those of you who are all bent out of shape about the crips and bloods statement – exactly what was Rush talking about when he said that? No fair looking now – you know that it was offensive in context, right, so what was the context?
October 17, 2009, 10:48 amanonymous says:
Look, I could go on, but I don’t care to play those games.
Translation: I couldn’t come up with 2 actual examples, so I just identified two humorous labels I disagree with (one of which I’ve never seen before of heard attributed to him) and hope that you’ll find more examples to support my unsupported argument.
Lol. You just can’t fathom that people don’t want to defend Rush, but don’t want to crawl into his hole of listeners to actually … listen to the crap he spews to point it out.
Im resting on the Blood/Crips = NFL football quote. If you prove to my satisfaction he never said that one, then I’ll go and pull out another, and another. Because no matter how much you try to claim his reputation was built on misquotes, it’s just not true.
And I suspect you’re starting to wake up to the fact that while crap flies in your circles maybe, it doesn’t fly everywhere across the US, and the NFL is aware of that fact and making their business decisions accordingly.
Keep on listening though. We’re not trying to take your crapmaster from you, so no worries mate.
October 17, 2009, 10:52 amDave N says:
anonymous,
What you don’t seem to get is that YOU are the one who chose to personalize the attack on Laura. I wasn’t going to wade into your trollery until YOU decided to personalize your attack against someone with whom you disagreed.
I have no problems with pseudonyms. I do have a problem with basic lack of civility — which is what you have shown.
October 17, 2009, 10:52 amanonymous says:
Oh Laura — it’s not about you.
And really, the burden is on you — if you’re admitting he said that — to explain why the NFL or others of us out here should not have a poor opinion of Mr. Limbaugh.
He earned the reputation, he should wiggle out of it himself, if the tiger is going to change his stripes midway though the game. What’s in for you though, “Laura”?
October 17, 2009, 10:54 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
He said it.
I’m asking about context.
You don’t know what the context was. Can’t be bothered to have found out before you started screaming about it. Because that might have interfered with your narrative about Rush being an evil person.
Just as you can’t be bothered to satisfy yourself that I’m not he-man in drag, because then you might feel that you have to apologize to me for saying “little Laura” – twice now – and you can’t do that.
October 17, 2009, 10:54 amtarheel says:
No, and frankly I am surprised that any law professor would seriously ask this question. Read Harte Hanks v. Connaughton for what it takes to satisfy actual malice. This ain’t it.
And Ryan Waxx, next time you get sued for defaming a public figure, I assure you that you can use every defense that a newspaper or broadcaster can use.
October 17, 2009, 10:54 amWaste93 says:
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
I think this is another fabricated quote. I believe he said this about the NBA, not the NFL, after the incident where some of the fights involving fans.
He also doesn’t refer to women as ‘feminazis’. He refers to the militant feminists as such.
One thing about Rush is that he uses sarcasm on a regular basis. He also, as he himself admits, shows the absurd by being absurd. So it’s not surprising you could find a sentence or two that may seem offensive. Without the rest of the context of course. Of course so of what he says will be offensive to those that don’t share his political view regardless.
Back to the original question, he may have a case. The complete lack by the media to attempt to verify the claim could indicate malicious intent which is the requirement. Also did they contact him to get his comments? Or just run with the ‘quote’ without any attempts to verify or contact Rush for verification?
October 17, 2009, 10:56 amfalafalafocus says:
Um, maybe you should give the context:
Repeating:
Maybe, you should give context, or at least a cite, before claiming that a person is making racist comments?
October 17, 2009, 10:56 amanonymous says:
No Dave.
If the “feminazi” days are ok, and the Halfrican American stuff is just something that we have to put up with under the First Amendment in times when people can’t be civilized because it doesn’t bring good ratings,
then it’s ok for me to use the insulting words like “lovely” and “little” referring to the comments of Laura.
If you want to jump in and “defend” her delicate ears, steering the thread off the true comments attributed to Rush, then you are diverting the thread, not me.
“lovely” and “little” are just two words you’re going to have to deal with hearing in these negative times when — gosh’nalmighty — other people actually have the uncivilized nerve to disagree on a comments thread, and push back at the spin/mischaracterization some feel the need to sell here.
Now stop making it about you, and stick to the subject at hand, please?
October 17, 2009, 10:58 amanonymous says:
That’s the game they’re playing, apparently without knowing how to put out fires when they do indeed catch air and get going. Thanks for admitting that you’re part of the problem.
Only if you meant that as, not one to jump in to put out fires that others have encouraged and started themselves.
Call 9-11 if you need help that bad, don’t be expecing sideline players just watching the game to owe you anything.
October 17, 2009, 11:01 amDave N says:
anonymous,
Fine. I will make it about you. YOU are an ass.
October 17, 2009, 11:03 amtarheel says:
I will say that it would be a helluva lot of fun to defend CNN in such a lawsuit. Discovery would be a hoot.
October 17, 2009, 11:04 amMorpheus says:
Limbaugh responds here: “The Race Card, Football and Me”
No talk of suit, or hint of predilection to sue.
October 17, 2009, 11:05 amanonymous says:
Lol. Wait a minute, someone posted this, thinking it would HELP Rush win friends in the NFL, with owners and fans? No. way. in. hell. they are going to trust that mouth on the air spewing opinions.
I don’t want boring football. I don’t want the no-fun league, but you can certainly have great football games without a lack of class. …
Yep. That’s the kind of daily on-air promotion I’d want selling my product.
October 17, 2009, 11:05 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
You didn’t refer to my comments as “little”. You referred to me as “little”.
October 17, 2009, 11:06 amfalafalafocus says:
Anonymous,
Where did I say I was pro-Rush? Show me where I said that.
October 17, 2009, 11:07 amanonymous says:
Fine. I will make it about you. YOU are an ass.
Feel better now? Good.
Now, try to make your case in 200 words or less, how it would be beneficial for the NFL to have this man on their team, when his opinions are denigrating to half the current workforce? Why was what boils down to a basic business decision wrong?
(feel free to use all the factualy quotations you like, but be advised, afterward, others are going to question your assumptions and point out that others may think differently than you, and even ladies are going to be disagreed with too, so be prepared for that.)
October 17, 2009, 11:08 amfalafalafocus says:
Also, I notice that you avoided addressing the context. Are you unable to defend your bald assertion that another person is a racist based on that quote?
October 17, 2009, 11:09 amanonymous says:
Did you write, “Uh, maybe you should give the context”?
Or were you picking that up from upthread?
If you wrote the “uh”, then what followed would have been your defense, no? If that “uh” was a quote of another, you didn’t make that too clear.
October 17, 2009, 11:11 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, the person who earlier slammed Rush for use of the term “feminazi” now reveals himself to be an unregenerate misogynist.
October 17, 2009, 11:12 amfalafalafocus says:
Although your “uh” rebuttal was stirring, (it moved me, I swear), I note that I am still waiting for your explanation as to how your quote, placed in context, establishes that the man is a racist.
October 17, 2009, 11:15 amanonymous says:
it’s ok for me to use the insulting words like “lovely” and “little” referring to the comments of Laura. You didn’t refer to my comments as “little”. You referred to me as “little”.
Oh dear. Someone needs to be in the kitchen baking cookies if their feelings are so sensitive, and they clearly don’t understand how other people write.
Laura, your comments here led me to believe you are a small-minded person. I personally don’t care for any special treatment whether you have a woman name in your handle or not.
Thus, after a few polite back and forths, I expressed my natural amazement at you, by calling you Lovely little Laura. That’s not obscene, it was meant to be denigrating, and if you honestly think you are due an apology for such namecalling, you must have been living in Amish country when our country coarsensed in recent years, for men and women.
I still suspect you aren’t the delicate southern woman your handle portends, but that is just my opinion. I can keep it, you can disagree and feel insulted and think the world owes you an apology. I disagree.
Now, can you get over yourself and keep on defending Rush based on the merits of the not-false quotes. You’re now trying to defend the reputation he has earned over the years, btw, as it appears we’ve advanced beyond the “false quotes caused people to think wrongly about him and reject the bid” line of
argumentspin that we started with.It’s not about the slavery quote people; it’s about the reputation that NFL fans and apparently some players and owners hold. It’s about divisiveness, and then whining when you get burned by the matches you’ve continually been lighting.
October 17, 2009, 11:19 amanonymous says:
Although your “uh” rebuttal was stirring, (it moved me, I swear), I note that I am still waiting for your explanation as to how your quote, placed in context, establishes that the man is a racist.
Ah-ha! So I did read that correctly, and you think the “context” does defend Our Savior Rush Limbaugh…
Sorry, I didn’t read past that first line about how boring the NFL is.
But if you think that some “backup facts” about Terrell Owens somehow in context justifies this, ” Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it. ”
then I suspect you don’t understand flamethrowing. See, sometimes you start a fire that way. And that’s what Rush’s reputation is today: an out of control fire set by the flames he has made money throwing.
Not safe business practices for the NFL who care about what their fans think. But do keep listening to his show, those of you who like that and look to him to describe America for you these days.
It’s not everyone’s cup of tea though, and remember what I said upthread about bystanders having no responsibility to help fight fires, even if they’re eventually headed for a bridge you didn’t want to see burned.
October 17, 2009, 11:25 amJustin Levine says:
No proof of “actual malice” against Limbaugh (who is a public figure)- hence he would be unlikely to prevail in a libel case.
Arguably the best and most comprehensive definition of the term “actual malice” was put forth by judge Richard Posner in the case of Desnick v. ABC, Inc. 233 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 2000).
Judge Posner explains:
Furthermore, proof of a personal animus or an “adversarial stance” is not evidence of “actual malice” Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762, 795-96 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc), cert denied, 484 U.S. 870 (1987)]
The fact that a passage may be one sided and contains categorical accusations does not prove that a publisher knowingly suspects it to be false. [McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296, 1307 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 66, 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)), cert denied, 117 S.Ct. 53 (1996)].
Even if it can be shown that a publication was specifically intended to harm or disparage a plaintiff, that is not proof of “actual malice” since it does not show actual subjective knowledge or serious suspicion of falsity at the time the publication was made. Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356 (1965); Woodcock v. Journal Publishing Co., 230 Conn. 525, 646 A.2d 92 (1994), cert denied, 513 U.S. 1149 (1995); Adams v. Frontier Broadcasting Co., 555 P.2d 556, 1166 (Wyo. 1976); Guthrie v. Annabel, 365 N.E.2d 1367, Id. 1977).
[By the way, I cut and paste most of this comment from a previous legal motion that I wrote. So don't please don't be mislead into thinking that I spent hours of legal research just to comment on a blog post.]
October 17, 2009, 11:25 amanonymous says:
Yes, the person who earlier slammed Rush for use of the term “feminazi” now reveals himself to be an unregenerate misogynist.Hey — if you post that on my wiki page, I might just have to sue you! And if it keeps me from getting my own NFL team someday, then I’m really going to make a big issue over your falsehoods!! After I demand, over and over and over again, an apology for treating me so MEAN like that! (have you read my blog yet — how could you call me names like that?)
October 17, 2009, 11:28 amfalafalafocus says:
Again, I never claimed to be a Rush fan, though you are free to believe that I said whatever you think I said. Just note that you discredit yourself more than anyone else.
Also, you originally used the quote to prove that Rush is a racist. I provided the context which establishes that the comment had very little to do with race and more to do with general thuggery. I have asked you twice to show me how the context proves racism, and you have not. But feel free to change the subject, if it suits your purposes better.
October 17, 2009, 11:30 amtroll_dc2 says:
Here is the transcript in which Rush made his Bloods and Crips remark. You will find it at the very end. So you will have all of the context that you can handle.
October 17, 2009, 11:36 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Justin, looking at your first paragraph and taking the quotes out, it seems to me that CNN et al. might be argued to be “recklessly indifferent” since CNN admitted that they didn’t try to source the quote. There was a risk of harm to the defendent, and he did in fact get dropped from the group that had been trying to get him to buy in and into which he wanted to buy in. They didn’t take the feasible measure of trying to validate the quote and they didn’t desist from quoting it. But this:
looks to me like an almost impossible standard to meet, Carol Burnett being the only exception that comes to mind for me.
Because if the CNN folks had already a bias against Rush, then they would not have entertained doubts that they should have entertained. I care less about Rush and his failed bid than I do about the spreading of falsehood and people being swayed to act on it – see the video I linked to earlier about things Obama voters didn’t know about Obama and about key Democrats but did know or think they knew about Palin, and it was all demagoguery by the media. Here’s the link, if you don’t want to go looking for it.
Seems to me that if the news people and the print and broadcast media want us to be vigilant in our support of their First Amendment rights, then they need to take their responsibilities at least somewhat seriously. One realizes that SNL isn’t CNN, but I don’t think CNN was much better, really.
October 17, 2009, 11:42 amtroll_dc2 says:
I really ought to feel upset that Rush got dropped from the ownership group in view of the fabricated remark about slavery, but I just don’t. I doubt whether the other owners would have voted to accept him in any event in light of his general reputation and the fact that over half of the NFL’s players are black.
I trust that he will be a man and go about his business and not act like a whining victim, although I admit that it would be fun to watch him bring a lawsuit and try to avoid answering questions at his deposition.
October 17, 2009, 11:50 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Troll, what questions do you think he would be asked?
I imagine that his deposition would cover the circumstances of the offer being extended to him and the damage that the lies did to his business ventures.
October 17, 2009, 11:53 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Also, you can characterize a person who objects to being lied about as a “whining victim” if you want, of course. I wouldn’t.
October 17, 2009, 11:54 amanonymous says:
Again, I never claimed to be a Rush fan, though you are free to believe that I said whatever you think I said. Just note that you discredit yourself more than anyone else. Also, you originally used the quote to prove that Rush is a racist. I provided the context which establishes that the comment had very little to do with race and more to do with general thuggery. I have asked you twice to show me how the context proves racism, and you have not. But feel free to change the subject, if it suits your purposes better.
Oh dear. Let me spend a minute more time with you here, but that’s all. If you don’t get it, you’ll have to spend time on your own.
The NFL does not want Mr. Limbaugh, based on his reputation, becoming an owner in their league. He has a reputation as a racist, bigot, white-man-first namecaller. Some claim his reputation is based on false quotes, and they cite them. Many like me, believe his reputation is based on years and years of flamethrowing. Not false quotes, real quotes and names like feminazi, halfricanamerican etc. We don’t cry, or try to get him off the air: we just don’t listen.
I gave a quote — the Blood and Crips one — to show that no, it’s not just misquotes that have given him a reputation as divisive. I’m not a fan, so I’ve no need to defend his reputation. It is what it is. Not my cup of tea, playing with fire like that.
I don’t have to parse his words, or put his reputation in context. He earned it over the years, was proud to wear it, and laughed all the way to the bank with such divisivness. Now it’s come back to bite him in the butt, and now you want to quibble over whether NFL fans should take offense at: “Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it. ”
Heck, even this would put off plenty of fans: I don’t want boring football. I don’t want the no-fun league, but you can certainly have great football games without a lack of class. I don’t know how it’s been allowed to happen this way.
The NFL doesn’t want to rish his loudmouth alienating fans. Get it? Rush fans think football fans must put the divisive comments in context — nope. Nor do we have to listen to quibbles like, he likes Republican woman, just not women who loudly protect their individual rights. Those are the ones he’s namecalling. Ditto the biracial Rush fans — don’t be put off by the Halfrican American talk, it’s not about you, in context.
Spin, quibble, push, but there is no way with all of the fodder he’s provided over the years that you can now remake this guy into Mother Theresa or a Jerry Lewis telethon. You can’t drive downfield, because once you get past those false quotes, you’ve simply got too much to parse now to convince people that Rush is a saint and that he would be good for the game of football, outside of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.
So keep pulling quotes in context, if you like, but don’t think that Rush fans out in force can remake this guy’s reputation.
October 17, 2009, 11:57 amanonymous says:
Also, you can characterize a person who objects to being lied about as a “whining victim” if you want, of course. I wouldn’t.
Can you please check on the cookies in the oven, dear? Thanks!
October 17, 2009, 11:59 ambailey says:
There was a nice verdict, in the millions, against a columnist/newspaper in Illinois that offered some speculation against Chief Justice Robert Thomas. Some of the above seem to think you can print anything you want about a public figure under the Sullivan standard. Ask counsel for the newspaper if that’s true
October 17, 2009, 12:00 pmA. Zarkov says:
Carol Burnett successfully sued the National Enquirer newspaper for libel after it ran a story describing her a public drunk. The paper did not know the story was false, nor did it have any actual malice against Burnett; it simply failed to check its facts. It seems to me that CNN was at least as reckless as the National Enquirer. I also suspect the people who ran the CNN story did act with malice.
Limbaugh was denied the opportunity to participate in a business deal solely on the basis of his political ideology and the defamation he suffered at the hands of the media. I would say he can show even more damage to himself than Burnett suffered (if any). How is this not a ligitimate libel case.
Question: can he sue in the UK where the plaintiff has the advangage?
October 17, 2009, 12:01 pmtarheel says:
Laura – any deposition would also cover, in detail, his history of comments concerning race and what his reputation actually is. If most people already think he is a bastard, then CNN’s false quote is only an incremental harm without actual damages. His past brushes with the law would also be relevant to his claims of reputational harm. That is just a start.
October 17, 2009, 12:04 pmJoe Tetreault says:
With regards to reckless disregard for truth:
The quotes falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh were obviously inflamatory. That they had been published in 2005 (if memory serves) indicates they had been in circulation for some four years. Under the basic threshhold of logic, is it not common sense to say, if he said this, why wasn’t there a kerfuffle then? While that may not (I’m not a legal scholar or a lawyer, so it’s not my place to say it does or does not) constitute reckless disregard for truth, it is a argument to the frame of mind that a media personality held when running with the quotes. Any competent journalist (perhaps this has entered the oxymoronic pantheon with jumbo shrimp?) would wonder why no one had done a story sooner, and then gone looking for that story. No one likes to be scooped, everyone hates making retractions.
Anonymous writes that “It’s not about the slavery quote.” Point of fact, in a libel suit it would only be about the slavery quote. The reputation of the NFL is irrelevant with regards to a libel suit, which is the basic proposition of the post from which this well of commentary has sprung. And by the way, Fergie and Jennifer Lopez (among the co-owners of the Miami Dolphins) say hello.
October 17, 2009, 12:05 pmanonymous says:
Limbaugh was denied the opportunity to participate in a business deal solely on the basis of his political ideology and the defamation he suffered at the hands of the media.
So you’re saying that the Blood Crips NFL comment wasn’t made by Limbaugh then, or that the owners had no business thinking about what comments like that might do to their product. And Rush’s reputation as divisive is undeserved?
He really loves puppies and rainbows and the whole bad rep rap is based on “defamation he suffered at the hand of the media”.
Boy, talk about defining suffering down these days… (I been a victim, of burned cookies! WHere do I signup to sue?)
October 17, 2009, 12:07 pmtarheel says:
bailey –
Counsel for the Illinois paper would tell you that Illinois state courts have only a passing familiarity with the First Amendment, especially when one of their colleagues is the plaintiff. That case is a constitutional travesty for a lot of reasons.
October 17, 2009, 12:08 pmArthurKirkland says:
In my judgment, Limbaugh had no chance of being admitted to the NFL’s circle of owners, for at least two reasons.
One is that he would be an unmanageable, high-profile factor, in the manner of a Mark Cuban (who also would likely have trouble being admitted to NFL ownership). NFL owners abhor boat-rocking; the pursuit of universal acceptance is as important to their success as fanning sometimes-ugly flames is to Limbaugh’s success.
The other is that he carries far too much baggage. The McNabb remark. The Bloods v. Crips quip. The personal problems (a drug addiction magnified by sending a female employee to conduct his drug deals and by his denials; the big bag of unlawful boner pills associated with a Dominican weekend). The calculated, incessant alienation of much or most of the American public.
Those who believe (or at least claim to believe) Mr. Limbaugh would be a suitable fit with NFL ownership might be mistaking the National Football League for pro rasslin’.
October 17, 2009, 12:09 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Would this be a good example of why we need a 15 minute lag between comments? Think your arguments through and put them in one post, don’t get involved in back-and-forths with trolls.
I expect anonymous will probably be banned if anyone bothers to read this post, but I stopped when the attacks started getting personal towards other posters.
October 17, 2009, 12:09 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Rush may or may not have a winnable suit, but would CNN dare expose itself to discovery by taking any suit he filed to trial?
‘Anonymous’: less of it, please. We disagree with one another here but we try to avoid childishness, for the look of the thing.
October 17, 2009, 12:10 pmA. Zarkov says:
So you are saying that Limbaugh engaged in even more serious slanders? Where and when has he defamed specific people by using fabricated statements? I think you just engaged in libel yourself. Shall I send your post to Rush?
October 17, 2009, 12:11 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Would it really? I think the timeline of events is more important here than Rush’s reputation. If he could show that he was acceptable to the group that had to accept him prior to the bad publicity centered around those quotes, I don’t see that lawsuit turning into a referendum on his reputation. Or his racism or lack thereof, which I suspect a lot of people think is at issue here.
October 17, 2009, 12:11 pmanonymous says:
Fergie and JLo (don’t forget Venus and Serena) are partial owners of the Dolphins, and yet their reputations didn’t threaten business owners enough for them to dump them.
For some reason, on-the-air Rush’s did. Remember, this is his primary business.
So either he chooses between flamethrowing, or the business owning. I think JLo, Fergie and Venus and Serena are known primarily for singing and playing tennis, not for making divisive comments to gain irate listeners who are angry that America just isn’t so white anymore and special entitlements for their types are going away, having to be earrrrrrrnnnnnnned by competing — honestly — with players who resemble Bloods and Crips.
October 17, 2009, 12:11 pmanonymous says:
Plus, I think Rush was hooked on the Oxy back when the slavery charges were added to wiki, so maybe he didn’t care so much about them then, when he wasn’t thinking about having a decent rep for buying an NFL team.
Funny things about flames: once lit, they’re really not under your control anymore. And maybe you scorch things that if you would have had a bit of foresight, you wouldn’t have risked in the first place.
October 17, 2009, 12:13 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Arthur, Limbaugh says that the NFL cleared him before this round of bad publicity. Drug use, etc., were already out there. Now, I don’t know if he was cleared or not, but if he was and can show that he was, then I don’t think your argument holds.
October 17, 2009, 12:14 pmtarheel says:
Any defamation lawsuit is about the plaintiff’s reputation. If he already has a lousy reputation, then any defamatory comment cannot, by law, have harmed his reputation.
October 17, 2009, 12:15 pmA. Zarkov says:
I don’t know “Blood Crips NFL comment,” but that’s not the issue. The “slavery” statement is.
October 17, 2009, 12:15 pmanonymous says:
If he could show that he was acceptable to the group that had to accept him prior to the bad publicity centered around those quotes, I don’t see that lawsuit turning into a referendum on his reputation.
Did he have some contract with them, that would have made them continue to carry him even after he became known in the business that he wouldn’t get unanimous consent of other owner’s, based on his reputation?
If so, then sure, sue your friends for contractual breach.
But since the group was just making a business call, and they learned later that the man was more a liability to their bid than aid, what was that abover about whining over spilled sour grapes??
It’s cute how it’s the media’s fault, though.
October 17, 2009, 12:17 pmanonymous says:
Daniel Chapman (from Marquette, right?)
Sorry to have kept your posts from appearing while I was responding to this thread. I won’t monopolize anymore — so you’ll be able to get yours up now, if you try.
October 17, 2009, 12:18 pmtarheel says:
For just a snapshot of the Illinois sham – see this report.
October 17, 2009, 12:19 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Seems like slut-shaming a rape victim to me.
If a person has a “reputation” then he can’t be lied about?
October 17, 2009, 12:19 pmneurodoc says:
Those are the “twitted” words of a purported news professional on a major news network “apologizing” for gross journalistic negligence?! Oh yeah, that major news network is CNN, the one that for years fronted for Saddam Hussein
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-to-ourselves.html
October 17, 2009, 12:20 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I thought about that too. In a proper world, the answer ought to be “no,” given that the UK has no relationship to the parties or the dispute. But the courts there embrace libel suits, and they allowed Roman Polanski to sue Conde Nast there. They look down on us because of our First Amendment.
But if Rush were to win, what could he collect? CNN could pull its resources out of the territory to avoid having them seized to pay the judgment. No American court would enforce the judgment (and in fact some states have laws forbidding enforcement of foreign libel judgments that do not meet our constitutional standards).
October 17, 2009, 12:21 pmanonymous says:
Limbaugh was denied the opportunity to participate in a business deal solely on the basis of his political ideology and the defamation he suffered at the hands of the media.
Nope. This is factually incorrect.
If the slavery statement were SOLELY the reason he was denied participation in the business deal, then maybe the overall rep would not matter.
Despite your spin, the slavery comment nor his politicial ideology is SOLELY the reason they booted him.
The fact that 100% of the other owners would not vote him in matters more in a business world, so the group dumped him hoping that would help their bid succeed.
October 17, 2009, 12:22 pmA. Zarkov says:
No. In many instances Wikipedia is like reading graffiti in a rest room. There is little quality control as should be obvious. Anyone who relies on Wikipedia for something so sensitive as a persons reputation is being reckless. Besides CNN is a news organization with the resources to do fact checking. It didn’t and should suffer for it.
October 17, 2009, 12:23 pmanonymous says:
Seems like slut-shaming a rape victim to me. If a person has a “reputation” then he can’t be lied about?
Not if he is trying to make the claim that the SOLE reason for his poor reputation that caused the NFL bid group to reject him was libelous statements.
October 17, 2009, 12:25 pmJim Treacher says:
Stacy Ferguson, AKA Fergie from the Black Eye Peas, is a recovering crystal meth addict. She is now part-owner of the Miami Dolphins.
But then again, she’s a big fan of Obama.
October 17, 2009, 12:33 pmtarheel says:
Spare me. A libel plaintiff is asserting his reputation was harmed – that is the claim. One of the elements of the claim is actual harm. The statement can be a lie and still not have caused any harm to his reputation. Which means the plaintiff loses.
October 17, 2009, 12:36 pmanonymous says:
Or maybe NFL fans don’t care what you do in your past private lives —- so long as you don’t criticize the product, and the workforce, on the air every day?
ps. Still waiting for the Venus/Serena defense too — really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
October 17, 2009, 12:37 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
That pretty much says it, doesn’t it. Plus, with his comments about McNabb, you know he isn’t a very good judge of football talent, either.
October 17, 2009, 12:38 pmJim Treacher says:
It shows, because you’re terrible at them. How in the world do those qualify as lies? You’re perfectly welcome to be offended by his rudeness, but your grasping as straws really is unseemly.
October 17, 2009, 12:41 pmJim Treacher says:
They weren’t his matches. If he’s so guilty, why did they have to frame him?
October 17, 2009, 12:43 pmMark says:
Hey everybody, Gang bangers in the NFL and NBA?? That can’t be…Derrick Rose was caught flashing Gangster Disciple signs while at college w/some gang banger in the foreground. Derrick said he felt bad. Ok. I know there were a couple NFL players that were flashing signs in the end zone. Can’t remember who that was. For the NFL to suddenly get outraged, they overlook players shooting each other, themselves, fighting in night clubs, getting drunk and running over and killing innocent civilians, shooting pregnant girlfriends, wives shooting NFL players, dog fighting, tax evasion, steroids, cocaine, more steroids,…the NFL even has a class for new recruits on how/why not to shoot people and drop out of gang banging for summer vacations…and yet, some deaf white guy w/a bunch of cash wants to drop a little bling on this crowd, and he just doesn’t measure up to NFL standards as understood by Al Sharpton??? The press uses Wikipedia to find out about said deaf white guys background, takes that info and preaches it as gospel… where every high school kid I know has altered pages to see how long it takes for someone to notice that Jesus is not the CEO of Best Buy?? This is too funny…
October 17, 2009, 12:44 pmgeokstr says:
Anonymous and the other leftists here have adopted and pursue ruthlessly a tactic that was perfected by one of their archenemies – Young Earth Creationists (YEC). It’s called “quote mining“.
What you do is search every word of your enemies public statements and writings and pull anything and everything possible insanely out of context to prove your point, even if that means putting statements in reverse order or needing ellipses to cut out inconvenient words and sentences. Then you claim that your “proof” on this one statement is enough to destroy the entire credibility of said opponent and that now absolutely everything else that this person says is “proven” false and can be ignored and ridiculed.
My favorite YEC quote-mine is one about Darwin himself. Darwin, in his book “On the Origin of Species” posits a hypothetical that evolution can’t possibly be proven, then goes on in the succeeding pages to demolish that hypothetical. But the YECs simply quote the hypothetical and say even Darwin didn’t believe in evolution.
And Randy, yes, what is being done here is a combination of two of the Rules:
But you already knew that.
October 17, 2009, 12:55 pmDuracomm says:
Fortunately for them liberals don’t apply the same standards for free speech and racism to their politicians that they do to talk show hosts.
Joe Biden’s just a barrel of gaffes
October 17, 2009, 12:57 pmDuracomm says:
Okay, Prove You Didn’t Say It!
October 17, 2009, 12:59 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Tarheel, the made-up quotes led the list in every article I saw that damned Rush. I think he could easily make the point that articles confining themselves to actual quotes would not have had the same effect.
October 17, 2009, 1:00 pmanonymous says:
Look, I could go on, but I don’t care to play those games. It shows, because you’re terrible at them
Thank you.
And no, I don’t care to be a “quote miner” because I don’t want to go underground and wade in that crap.
I saw this, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” quoted in a Eugene Robinson column, and thought — Game Over.
I don’t care how many lies were told about or by Rush — how can you get past that one?
It takes unanimous consent from other owners, and here you’ve got a guy who makes his business being divisive and insulting their product.
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
God bless the St. Louis group for wising up, belatedly, and realizing there is no way in hell they can rehab a reputation built on divisiveness, angering others who take offense at namecalling, and cheap shots.
If he said this, ““The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” then the reputation he carrys on his own keeps him out.
Who cares if other lies were told, because his own words will bar the door to other NFL owners unanimously accepting him on that bid team.
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
October 17, 2009, 1:03 pmRyan Waxx says:
Just as I expected – next to no legal analysis, whole lot of Rush-bashing.
Way to reaffirm the image of the tolerant liberal who’s concerned with facts, people.
October 17, 2009, 1:03 pmanonymous says:
Rush could still run for office with his reputation, though.
Just like Joe Biden, he has a shot of convincing 50+ percent to elect him, despite his reputation.
Unanimous vote for the NFL owners: no way. Private business owners get to decide their own way who they want in, who they don’t want, period. Surely you private-business-supporting types don’t want to monkey with that, do you?
October 17, 2009, 1:05 pmanonymous says:
They weren’t his matches.
Jim, unless you can explain to me how the Blood and Crips quote above was misattributed, yes sirree Bob. Those WERE his matches that kept the fames flamed, and the current owners realizing we can’t afford to have this guys alienate ANY of our current fans and consumers.
A smart business decision. Feminazi’s watch football, as do HalfricanAmericans, plus even some Blood and Crip gangbangers too, I hear.
Think of it as “critical mass”, if you must.
October 17, 2009, 1:08 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Anonymous: “I don’t want to go underground and wade in that crap.”
Heh.
October 17, 2009, 1:09 pmanonymous says:
next to no legal analysis, whole lot of Rush-bashing.
Cmon. The First Amendment legal analysis was over with your first comment, friend. (Though you too are afforded the same protections as the press.)
You got it right — no way in Hades he prevails, though it would be fun to watch the discovery/depositions.
October 17, 2009, 1:10 pmJim Treacher says:
Quote mining indeed. Yes sirree, Bob.
October 17, 2009, 1:10 pmJim Treacher says:
You’re welcome.
October 17, 2009, 1:11 pmLN says:
Here’s some legal analysis for you Ryan.
Rush Limbaugh’s reputation dramatically changed as the result of a statement by CNN’s Rick Sanchez. Prior to Sanchez’s statement, Limbaugh was an unknown quantity. But first impressions matter a lot and Sanchez really screwed Limbaugh over. Yeah sure, we can dig through the rest of Limbaugh’s obscure comments but it’s too late — Sanchez has firmly fixed Limbaugh’s reputation in the public eye, and Limbaugh is stuck with it.
Because I am a strong believer that there are not enough lawsuits in America, I think Limbaugh would be well-advised to sue CNN for damages. Later, we can wage war on the billionaire communist sympathizers who run the National Football League, which is primarily a political propoganda tool (what a disgusting business) and not a massive billion-dollar business (like Rush Limbaugh).
October 17, 2009, 1:11 pmanonymous says:
Daniel,
Why the “heh”?
Can you even wrap your mind around the idea that some of us have no idea why you Rush listeners continue to tune in day after day after day to listen to such divisive anger?
It would be like working for Gambino public defense, wading in that crap to make money to get by…
October 17, 2009, 1:12 pmJim Treacher says:
And if it’s based on lies, so what?
October 17, 2009, 1:13 pmanonymous says:
Stumped ya into silence with that nugget, I did. No need to continue mining for me — that one shuts the door to NFL ownership when you have to acheive unanimity.
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Everyone, tune into to Sunday’s games!
No such thing as bad publicity, indeed!
October 17, 2009, 1:15 pmtroll_dc2 says:
anonymous, I don’t like Rush any more than you do, but enough already. We already know what you think.
October 17, 2009, 1:16 pmanonymous says:
Private business owners get to decide their own way who they want in, who they don’t want, period. Surely you private-business-supporting types don’t want to monkey with that, do you? And if it’s based on lies, so what
Jim, in order to save time, please clarify: are you saying this statement is untrue “based on lies” or arguing that the NFL owners shouldn’t consider his reputation for making statments like this:
October 17, 2009, 1:17 pmThe NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Jim Treacher says:
The context of the quote has already been pointed out to you, which apparently stumped you into falling back on mere repetition.
October 17, 2009, 1:18 pmanonymous says:
I don’t like repeating myself either, troll. But these people obviously aren’t listening the first time, and continue to pepper me with easy questions.
If you don’t answer back, they make stupid assumptions and misstate your arguments.
*still waiting for the “But Venus and Serena Williams got to be NFL partial owners, and look at the bad stuff they said, which rightfully SHOULD have earned them a reputation like Rush’s…”*
October 17, 2009, 1:19 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Oh I just thought it was slightly amusing that you would consider yourself “above” any level of crap wading. You realize that you are pretty much the dregs of this discussion, right? You have singlehandedly dragged it to levels I’ve rarely seen on VC in the five years or so I’ve been reading it.
Did you really just call someone “little laura” and tell her to go back to the kitchen in the same ten minutes you complained about the use of the term “feminazi?”
I really wish you’d just quit while you’re behind, but as long as you won’t, I just want to call attention to the fact that you really should be banned before you drag down the reputation of these forums.
Heh… now he’s calling OTHER people trolls? I don’t think that means what you think it means.
October 17, 2009, 1:20 pmGordon Langston says:
This is the version of Rick Sanchez’s twitter I got in an e-mail.
i’ve know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is incredibly incisive and he’s right. we didn’t even try to confirm the quotes. our bad.
As my cousin Jac said after a few months of being a Superior Court Judge in California and observing the defendants, “these people have no shame.”
October 17, 2009, 1:21 pmJim Treacher says:
Okay: You’re a tedious, repetitive liar who projects more than a cineplex. HTH.
October 17, 2009, 1:21 pmJim Treacher says:
Then continue to ignore the context. It’s all you’ve got at this point.
October 17, 2009, 1:22 pmtroll_dc2 says:
You’re treating this thread like a sporting event.
October 17, 2009, 1:23 pmanonymous says:
The context of the quote has already been pointed out to you, which apparently stumped you into falling back on mere repetition.
Keep going, you can do it…
Yes, and then we went forward with explaining, most people don’t want to hear a defense of every single quote like that which clearly disrespects the NFL brand.
We tried to explain how, when you build a reputation on divisiness that you are only to proud to carry for years and years, you can’t simply say “CONTEXT!!” and expect everyone to give your boy benefit of the doubt, buy pulling some paragraphs that start out with how the NFL need not be boring, and concludes with, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
Now pull your fingers out of your ears, Rush fans, and try to understand why neutral folks like me (don’t hate Rush; just don’t care to listen and do think he is divisive intentionally) understand that the NFL owners made a wise decision in communicating to that bid team early on, “Lose Rush, because we will never have an on-air owner risking turning fans off.”
October 17, 2009, 1:24 pmanonymous says:
As an NFL fan and non-Rush listener, why don’t you try to not quote context, but explain to me instead how NFL players and fans should support someone who only a short time ago was making comments like that one.
“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”
October 17, 2009, 1:25 pmLN says:
Stacy Ferguson, AKA Fergie from the Black Eye Peas, is a recovering crystal meth addict. She is now part-owner of the Miami Dolphins.
But then again, she’s a big fan of Obama.
OMG you’re being oppressed. See here:
October 17, 2009, 1:26 pmDaniel Chapman says:
“Neutral folks like me”
heh.
October 17, 2009, 1:26 pmJim Treacher says:
If only you could.
“Neutral.” Finally you said something funny!
October 17, 2009, 1:26 pmanonymous says:
You’re treating this thread like a sporting event.
I’m all for competition, fair play, and no let up for lousy calls and hometeams trying to spin the plays, despite the honest eyesight of others watching the entertainment.
October 17, 2009, 1:27 pmgeokstr says:
Sorry, but uncritically regurgitating the quote mine of another leftist doesn’t mean you’re not quote mining too.
Others here have linked to the context of the “Bloods and Crips” quote, but you apparently haven’t bothered to read the links, because you already know that Limbaugh is a Nazi racist capitalist roader. I get it.
Limbaugh was obviously decrying the gang-like thuggish behavior that the NFL is deteriorating into, not that all blacks and hispanics are thugs. What better metaphor to use to describe this – the Yakuza and the Mafia? Then the left would have cried foul anyway, saying he was racist against Asians and Italians.
And I actually heard Limbaugh explain his use of the term “feminazi” back in the early 1990′s, where he specifically said it was not mean to apply to all women, and not even to the vast majority of those who consider themselves feminists. It was specifically aimed at the radical feminists – like the man-hating ones who inhabit the university gender studies departments and put out BS studies about Super Bowl violence against women and how all sex is rape.
But leftists completely lack a sense of proportion, perspective and context – after all, to them, the Constitution itself is “just words”, meaning whatever the hell it is they want it to.
October 17, 2009, 1:28 pmJim Treacher says:
What does that have to do with the assertion that Limbaugh was dropped because of past drug use?
October 17, 2009, 1:28 pmEMG says:
Laura, you don’t seem to understand the dilemma on which you’ve caught yourself. If ‘lovely little Laura’ gets to claim the protections of PC, then so do Halfrican-Americans. Either that – or neither of you do. IOW, if you want to work as a foot-soldier for the resurgent hegemony of white males, you don’t get to talk back when one of them puts you in your place. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
October 17, 2009, 1:29 pmanonymous says:
Oh jimmy jim treacher…
Easily amused, you are. Off topic, not caring to respond to basic business sense.
Y’all don’t watch NFL football anyway, do ya? Just root root root for the home team… if they don’t win, blame the media! Cuz it’s one, two, three crappy statements and you’re out, in the unanimous NFL owners game!
October 17, 2009, 1:29 pmJim Treacher says:
My goodness, what a display.
October 17, 2009, 1:30 pmMelvin H. says:
To “anonymous”: A couple of points to note here:
>> RE: “Feminazi“–Barbara Walters asked Rush about that in a 20/20 interview about 15 years ago, about the time his second book came out. Rush’s answer was that a “feminazi” was a group of about 15-20 women, almost all activists, who were way out on the fringes of the women’s movement–for examples, a woman who claimed that all sex was rape, even in marriage; another who claimed that eating meat was a form of rape, etc.–that for some reason got a lot of press coverage at that time. He specifically said that not all those in the women’s movement were feminazi’s by any stretch of the imagination.
>> RE: Donovan McNabb–I heard that quote live, and I did wince when “black” was in there–but I did NOT think Rush should have been fired. He should have been given the chance on-air the next week to explain himself or at least to retract that part of the quote; or at worst suspended for a week or two.
October 17, 2009, 1:31 pmWhy? Because the point he was trying to make–that the media WANT certain players to do well, so the media don’t seem to criticize those player(s)–was a point he had made TWICE previously about two other quarterbacks–BOTH WHITE–who also were in cities with tough media or public reputations: Vinny Testaverde (then with the Jets) and Doug Flutie (then with the Bills). Remember also, that when McNabb was drafted, the Eagles fans at the draft…..BOOOOED!.
In reality, McNabb has never been treated that well in Philly, far worse than, say, Randall Cunningham! (When McNabb does write his book, I will be really curious about his take on all of this….).
Also, Mark above said it far better than anything else I could say, so I’ll refer you, “anonymous” to his quote–and please read it carefully…unlike CNN and others.
LN says:
What does that have to do with the assertion that Limbaugh was dropped because of past drug use?
I could ask exactly the same thing of this:
But then again, she’s a big fan of Obama.
Nice try though.
October 17, 2009, 1:31 pmLN says:
I have to agree with anonymous, it’s pretty rich for proud defenders of “feminazi” and “halfrican-american” to cry about “little Laura.” “Waah, you’re hurting my feelings!”
October 17, 2009, 1:33 pmanonymous says:
Sorry, but uncritically regurgitating the quote mine of another leftist doesn’t mean you’re not quote mining too. Others here have linked to the context of the “Bloods and Crips” quote, but you apparently haven’t bothered to read the links, because you already know that Limbaugh is a Nazi racist capitalist roader. I get it
I don’t think he’s a Nazi or a racist capitalist roader. *poor baby has to make up haters now?*
I think he’s divisive, and would be a potential turn off to NFL fans. I think the owners made a wise decision in telling the bid group: lose him, because no way would we unanimously vote your group in.
That’s his reputation — deliberately divisive. For years, it was an embraceable one. But then, he never forsaw a private business owner’s group telling him: hey, we have a diverse fan base, and have to be careful about not losing them.
Y’all don’t like hearing that your views of Rush are not in the majority — that despite your spin, context, and trying to clean up after the fact, we’re not interested in that crap spewing. So keep on doing what it is your doing, but don’t bring it into the NFL owner’s suites.
October 17, 2009, 1:33 pmDr. Weevil says:
anonymous:
Now that you’ve repeated the Crips and Bloods quotation roughly a dozen times, perhaps you could explain how saying that (as Limbaugh apparently did) was even one-tenth or one-twentieth as offensive as praising slavery or James Earl Ray (which he didn’t).
While you’re at it, how about signing your comments with something a bit more distinctive than ‘anonymous’? No one’s asking for a real name, or even any clue as to your age or gender or profession or location or anything that would allow some kind of creep to mock you for any of your (putative) personal characteristics. It’s obvious that most of the comments signed ‘anonymous’ on this thread are from the same person, but there’s no way of knowing if they all are, and it would be nice to know whether we’re arguing with the same person at different times. Even ‘anonymous in Omaha’ or ‘anonymous1123′ would suffice, but signing all your comments ‘anonymous’ is rude.
October 17, 2009, 1:34 pmJim Treacher says:
You could, but it wouldn’t make any more sense than you’re making already. If the NFL doesn’t like druggies owning their teams, why is Fergie an exception?
October 17, 2009, 1:34 pmanonymous says:
Hey — I got an idea.
Why doesn’t Rush take all his money, start his own league with the kind of players he likes, and show all the rest of us how much he can be divisive AND own his own team, bringing in players and fans alike.
Oh yeah — keeps going back to that divisive reputation…
October 17, 2009, 1:35 pmArthurKirkland says:
It would be strange for the NFL to “pre-approve” an individual member of a prospective bidder — that would seemingly involve more accommodation than was exhibited in the recent Steelers reorganization, and — to put it mildly — I haven’t seen a factor in the Rams situation that should incline better treatment than Mr. Rooney could expect.
It also would have been strange, had Mr. Limbaugh been pre-approved by the league, for Roger Goodell — whose father and father-in-law were prominent Republican public officials, and seems ill-disposed by nature, heritage and job responsibilities to attack Mr. Limbaugh for ideological reasons — to have preemptively and publicly doubted that NFL ownership would admit a “divisive” figure (and mentioned Mr. Limbaught by name in that context).
If the claim is that a would-be bidding group had “approved” Mr. Limbaugh as a participant in the group — I doubt that and six bucks would cover the cost of a beer at any NFL stadium during a game.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone with a minimal understanding of the context could expect Rush Limbaugh to have a legitimate chance to become an NFL owner. This resembles arguments I have observed over the years in which someone contends that a strong college team — usually Notre Dame, USC or an SEC school, in my experience — could whip a weak professional team. The advocate for the college team is never anyone who understands professional, college or high school football, at least in my experience.
October 17, 2009, 1:36 pmLN says:
I agree that Rush’s drug use is irrelevant, Jim. I was obviously mocking your “But then again, she’s a big fan of Obama” comment — which implies that Fergie was approved because she supports Obama, and Rush was rejected because he’s a Republican. But keep on “playing” dumb if you want.
October 17, 2009, 1:36 pmanonymous says:
If the NFL doesn’t like druggies owning their teams, why is Fergie an exception?
Because you misstate the argument, again.
The NFL doesn’t dislike druggies owning their teams.
The NFL dislikes divisive on-air persons broadcasting their negative opinions, and being linked to the NFL.
(cmon — you’re getting closer and closer to acknowledging the true facts…)
October 17, 2009, 1:37 pmA. Zarkov says:
According to Limbaugh writing in the WSJ here, “David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise.” If Limbaugh’s reputation was so bad then why did Checketts approach him? Moreover, how do we know he actually has a bad reputation? Obviously some people don’t like him, but that’s true about everyone with significant public exposure. Do we have polling data that would suggest more than 50% of America dislikes him? Or even more than 50% of football fans? If he has such a bad reputation then why does he have such a popular radio show?
As for the Blood and Crips quote, here is the full context. Readers can judge for themselves.
It seems reasonable to me (others will differ of course) that Limbaugh’s prior reputation had little to do with his problem in becoming an investor. He was the victim of a smear campaign that used falsified information. I hope this does go to court so we can get the full story.
October 17, 2009, 1:37 pmDaniel Chapman says:
If Anonymous was calling Laura a “halfrican american” (I don’t know what race she is, obviously), I’d be calling him out on that too. Personal invective is personal invective.
October 17, 2009, 1:38 pmJim Treacher says:
Sounds like you’ve got a better theory. What is it?
I’ll just watch you for the real thing.
October 17, 2009, 1:38 pmRandy says:
geokstr: “nd Randy, yes, what is being done here is a combination of two of the Rules:”
huh? I didn’t post here….
October 17, 2009, 1:38 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
EMG, I haven’t caught myself on anything.
I’ve pointed out the ridiculousness of a person who claims to disapprove of Rush based on his use of the term “feminazi” and then reveals himself to be a misogynist.
Are you signing onto that too?
And does asking that people not lie about each other = working as a foot-soldier for the resurgent hegemony of white males? Do you really want to go there?
October 17, 2009, 1:40 pmJim Treacher says:
Don’t tell me, tell rpt. That’s who’s making the argument.
October 17, 2009, 1:40 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Oh – and “my place” is in the kitchen. Thanks for that too.
October 17, 2009, 1:41 pmanonymous says:
perhaps you could explain how saying that (as Limbaugh apparently did) was even one-tenth or one-twentieth as offensive as praising slavery or James Earl Ray (which he didn’t).
Wow, a little more remedial help needed, eh?
This statement stands alone, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Nevermind the McNabb comments, or the MLK assasination allegations.
If you diss the product — and the people who watch and play — you can’t get over that later by saying, “what I meant when I chose that language was….”
There’s a reason some of you don’t own NFL teams, if you honestly think 100% of them would look past that comment alone and not think they were risking the brand that has attracted all types to the game.
(really, pull those fingers out of your ears and stop acting stupid)
October 17, 2009, 1:41 pmDaniel says:
Limbaugh’s defenders seem to win a point simply by addressing the question. But the Sullivan test is a bit tricky. “Actual malice” has little to do with actual malice. “Reckless disregard” for the truth is probably the best shorthand for the test.
Source checking is not always needed. If Limbaugh has a reputation as someone who makes racially divisive quotes (I don’t know that he makes them but he has that reputation) then there may be less need to check quotes that are simply examples of what the reporter believes to be true. Admittedly, Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable on matters of public debate. But I understand that, if the false quotes had been cite checked, they could have been found in a book.
I don’t think it is a defense that Limbaugh would not have been approved as a football owner, although it would certainly be a factor in looking at damages. Other quotes, if similar, may aid a defense since they support the claim that the reporter had a reason to believe the thinly-sourced quotes.
October 17, 2009, 1:43 pmLN says:
First off, I disproved your theory — over the past 20 years, people involved in the NFL, including the largely African-American player base, have given nearly 80% of their political contributions to Republicans. So either argue against that, or admit that your theory is stupid, or have the decency to keep quiet.
Second, the obvious theory is that bringing Limbaugh on board would be bad for the NFL bottom line. Since Limbaugh is a divisive figure who is seriously despised by a large segment of the population, this does not seem to be a large stretch.
But the dittohead voices crying “I’m a victim!” are only going to get louder. So much for a philosophy of self-reliance. All I hear is incessant whining.
October 17, 2009, 1:44 pmgeokstr says:
Yeah, I know, but I was just being pre-emptively reactive, since in another thread I commented on and didn’t mention Alinsky, you criticized me for it anyway.
Sorry, just having a little fun with ya.
October 17, 2009, 1:45 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Is that seriously all you’re seeing here?
October 17, 2009, 1:46 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Is this a legal blog anymore?
October 17, 2009, 1:47 pmB-Rob says:
From a legal standpoint, Rush has no case. What could he prove as far as damages are concerned? That someone thought he was a racist? Well, duh! The well documents statements he has made provide enough evidence of him having “issues” with minorities. So no one hearing the false comments attributed to Rush would say “Rush would never say that!”, would they?
Another uncomfortable fact: Rush is VERY QUICK to call other people racist, with no evidence supporting the label he ascribed to them. He called Obama racist, he called Sonia Sotomayor racist, never noting the irony of a White male with aforesaid “issues” calling minorities racist. He loves playing on the edge of racist commentary, whether it is his idiotic parody songs about Barack the Magic Negro or his comments about “Obama’s America” involving the casual assault on White people.
All this adds up to one truth: where race is concerned, Rush is “libel-proof”. Having willingly played with fire in the past, he is now burned by the same. Well life is tough, Rush. If you had not been so friggin callous in the past, MAYBE you would have a leg to stand on when you cry foul now. But if “racist” is a label good enough for you to lay on our President and a Supreme Court Justice, then it is good enough for you, too, Rush. Stop the whining.
Boy that would be a fun deposition on the damage to his “character”. You would get to talk about his drug problems, his conviction, his maid scoring pills for him, his detention in the Dominican Republic, his three or four divorces and why they occurred, not to mention all the racially charged stuff he has said and admitted over the years, the racially offensive “parody songs” from his room-tempurature-IQ listeners that he plays on his show. His deposition would be a very fun three or four days proving one thing: Rush has done more to destroy his own character that any false comment cheerleading slavery ever could.
And isn’t this delicious: The same NFL whose predominately Black players Rush compared to “the Bloods and the Crips” [i.e., murderous felon gangmembers], the league he accused of promoting a probable Hall of Fame QB because of his race (and not his trip to the Super Bowl, his career passer rating in the 90s and multiple Pro-Bowls) — that league told the admitted drug addict and race baiter “thanks, but no thanks” when he wanted to make a few million dollars off the labor of the aforesaid minority players. Too funny!
October 17, 2009, 1:47 pmanonymous says:
I really wish you’d just quit while you’re behind, but as long as you won’t, I just want to call attention to the fact that you really should be banned before you drag down the reputation of these forums. Heh… now he’s calling OTHER people trolls? I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Duh, I responed to a person who called themselves “trolldc”, just like you can call me anonymous, if you are responding to something I wrote.
But of course, if I was banned, then you would conclude that I was labeling someone a troll, instead of responding to them directly with their chosen name.
Really — is that how you “win”? Silence somebody else raising stronger arguments (ie/ The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. )
and continue to pretend that the reason people out here have a bad opinion of Rush Limbaugh’s reputations is because of some misquote on wikipedia repeated by CNN news.
Before that came out, of course even everyone neutral who wasn’t a listener had no idea what kind of divisive crap was being spewed by that brand of talk radio.
Honestly, do you believe Rush’s reputation just took a dive recently? You ought to get out in some uncensored forums more often; newsflash: the America you define in your head ain’t the one living, working and breathing out here in the real world.
And watching NFL games.
October 17, 2009, 1:49 pmJim Treacher says:
Perhaps it would help if you took the time to explain to us Earthlings which theory you have disproven, and why that is the case.
If he’s so self-evidently awful, then why do his detractors have to rely on manufactured or out-of-context quotes?
I wouldn’t presume to tell you to stop.
October 17, 2009, 1:49 pmB-Rob says:
Read my post below about deposing Rush. Discovery is the reason why Rush may threaten to sue, but never will.
October 17, 2009, 1:49 pmFederal Farmer says:
I don’t listen to Rush and don’t really care much either way about him buying into an NFL team. Just wanted to briefly offer commentary on the ‘halfrican-american’ issue. My wife is of mixed heritage and liked the term. I’m guessing Mr. Ballantine would send her back to the porch like he did Juan. LOL.
October 17, 2009, 1:49 pmanonymous says:
Oh – and “my place” is in the kitchen. Thanks for that too.
I was just trying to protect you, Laura. If you were calling for an apology for being called lovely and little (as in small minded), then I think an open comments thread where people openly disagree and express divisive opinions might be a bit much for you.
See, when you go around playing the little lady and demanding apologies and acting all personally insulted and trying to get others to call for bans because you don’t like somebody arguing back on your “facts”, then maybe the kitchen would be a better natural place for you?
Hey — didn’t Larry Summers say something like that, and draw the wrath of the PC crowd too?
October 17, 2009, 1:52 pmChrisTS says:
Hmm. I see the strength of your argument. Nonetheless, I cannot blame Laura for being offended by the tack Anonymous has taken.
I detest Limbaugh and could not care less about the NFL. No dog for me in all this. But, I do think Anonymous has been engaging in some pretty bizarre and personal remarks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I know that people here can be quite unpleasant at times, but Anonymous just rushed out of the gate and went after Laura based on her sex/gender and putative appearance. We might ask others to exercise some restraint, even though we know those requests will not be perfectly met.
October 17, 2009, 1:52 pmEMG says:
No, Laura, you’re an apologist for racism and sexism. Logically,if you’re concerned about misogyny, you should be infinitely more upset about RL’s use of ‘feminazi’ than about some anonymous dude’s inconsistent response to it. But either you’re not really concerned about misogyny, you’ve made a semi-conscious decision to trade off a certain degree of misogyny (always aimed at those other, radical women, of course) for the indulgence of racism, or you’re just confused. In any case, you don’t get to complain if anonymous offends you, because you’ve thrown in your lot with the view that those offended by RL have nothing to complain about. Simultaneously defending RL and calling out others on similar expressions of prejudice is simply not on. You have make up your mind: is it cool for white men to denigrate the rest of us, or not?
October 17, 2009, 1:53 pmChrisTS says:
I should say, “ask one another”
October 17, 2009, 1:54 pmanonymous says:
My wife is of mixed heritage and liked the term.
Black and white? Or puerto rican and polish, or something like that?
ps. It’s not a strong argument generally, to say, I have a black friend. He didn’t take offense as “X”. The others then must have a low insult threshhold.
Mr Limbaugh is free, of course, to continue with his labels, sarcasm, and insults. But not to act surprised when his reputation causes some to not want to associate him with their brand.
October 17, 2009, 1:54 pmLN says:
Wow. First you ask me if I “have a better theory,” and then later you’re confused: “your theory is better than what?” And so after I explain myself perfectly clearly, the trolling mouthbreather still doesn’t get it.
October 17, 2009, 1:56 pmDaniel Chapman says:
I’m not trying to “win,” anonymous. I wouldn’t even stoop to calling it a competition. I just wish you’d stop talking because you’re embarrassing.
October 17, 2009, 1:56 pmEH says:
A. Zarkov:
Limbaugh was denied the opportunity to participate in a business deal solely on the basis of his political ideology and the defamation he suffered at the hands of the media.
It’s as if the NFL had an antitrust exemption.
October 17, 2009, 1:56 pmFederal Farmer says:
She is black, white, and native American. I do not cite her as a refutation of the charge of racism, but as an example of at least one person that fit the term that did not find it denigrating. Obviously opinions vary.
October 17, 2009, 1:57 pmanonymous says:
Chris:
Nonetheless, I cannot blame Laura for being offended by the tack Anonymous has taken.
Nor can I. She has an absolute right to feel offended and insulted. And you too have an absolute right to feel protective toward her, and stop reading what I write.
You might not like my tactics, but at least the thread has come to a point where we’re not arging that Mr. Limbaugh’s reputation was negatively impacted by a few wiki misquotes.
It took a while to get there, but surely some eyeballs were opened as to why the NFL owners group wouldn’t even bother voting as to having Rush as an owner.
The divisive reputation has been around for years, and despite the latter-day context criers, nobody’s mind has been changed about whether or not he is a deliberately divisive figure who would damage the NFL brand.
October 17, 2009, 1:58 pmanonymous says:
I do not cite her as a refutation of the charge of racism, but as an example of at least one person that fit the term that did not find it denigrating. Obviously opinions vary
And I don’t think it’s out of line for me to observe either: I suspect your wife is in the minority of other people also in her condition who would consider themselves to be full Americans and who could easily take that term the wrong way. (please no context quotes: the term itself is what it is!)
Best wishes!
October 17, 2009, 2:00 pmJim Treacher says:
The important thing is that you understand what you’re talking about.
Fergie was addicted to crystal meth. She now has a stake in an NFL team. One would think this would put to rest the claim that Limbaugh was dropped because of his Oxycontin problem, and it might make even rageballs like LN stop and think for a moment. Why is a bizarre, garish public urinator like Stacy Ferguson less of a problem for the NFL than Rush Limbaugh?
October 17, 2009, 2:01 pmvinsento says:
Quick somebody activate the bat-light!
Somewhere in a America the rights of a rich white guy are being trampled!
I guess Stuart Taylor was too busy to get the call, thank God that Adler is on the scene.
October 17, 2009, 2:01 pmJim Treacher says:
“I derailed the conversation, therefore proving its lack of merit.”
October 17, 2009, 2:02 pmMark says:
No it isn’t. I’m thinking of starting a bookie operation for NFL gambling…Volokh OTB…
October 17, 2009, 2:02 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
1 – Please show me where I defended Rush’s use of the term “feminazi”. I am not in conversation with Rush here. You need not presume to know what I would say to Rush about that, or about “reporterette”, or other things he has said if I had occasion. I was in conversation with anonymous, but I put him on ignore a long time back.
2 – I am not confused, thanks AGAIN, thanks ONCE AGAIN for the patronizing crap. And I can complain about anything I care to complain about. You do not get to tell me what I can or can’t complain about. You’re going to accuse me of being a foot soldier in the white male hegemony? It is to laugh, seriously.
3 – I have not thrown in my lot with anybody except those who think that news media ought not to get by with telling outright lies about anybody, even if they are public figures.
October 17, 2009, 2:03 pmvinsento says:
“Limbaugh was denied the opportunity to participate in a business deal solely on the basis of his political ideology and the defamation he suffered at the hands of the media.”
Life must really suck for you right now Zarkhov. First Obama, the Sotomayor, and now your stroke-buddy Limbaugh.
Welcome to America.
October 17, 2009, 2:03 pmanonymous says:
I’m not trying to “win,” anonymous. I wouldn’t even stoop to calling it a competition. I just wish you’d stop talking because you’re embarrassing.
Good thing then that you’re not “trying”… (cuz you’re clearly not convincing.)
Sorry if my words offend or embarrass your delicate thought processess. Sometimes you have to speak honestly and directly in refuting what others write, and wrongly assume.
Perhaps you could give Laura a hand with those cookies in the kitchen? Nothing at all wrong with saying you are uncomfortable addressing legal issues in full detail, even when one quotes — over and over again — a spot-on remark that clearly shows why the NFL wants nothing to do with such a potentially divisive owner who could drive away fans they have worked to welcome.
October 17, 2009, 2:04 pmJim Treacher says:
Anytime you’re ready to begin.
October 17, 2009, 2:05 pmDr. Weevil says:
We’re “not arg[u]ing that Mr. Limbaugh’s reputation was negatively impacted by a few wiki misquotes”? Only because of the hard work of ‘anonymous’ and a few allies in diverting the argument with irrelevancies and misrepresentations. The fact is that those were not “wiki misquotes”, they were bald-faced lies planted to damage Limbaugh and recklessly repeated by others who didn’t care whether they were true or not. ‘anonymous’ (still too lazy to come up with a distinctive pseudonym) keeps insisting that Limbaugh has genuinely said some things that would offend some NFL fans, which no one denies, but pretends not to understand when it is pointed out that what he has actually said is nowhere near as offensive as what was falsely attributed to him. His bid for NFL ownership was going fine until the false quotations hit the news.
October 17, 2009, 2:05 pmanonymous says:
I was in conversation with anonymous, but I put him on ignore a long time back.
Why do you assume I am a “him”?
Assumptions, assumptions …
October 17, 2009, 2:06 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Wait we can ignore posts from individual users now? Is it based upon IP address or user name? I suppose ignoring anyone named “Anonymous” is pretty safe, but I’d like to be sure.
October 17, 2009, 2:10 pmJim Treacher says:
I, for one, have not been assuming you have any balls.
October 17, 2009, 2:10 pmanonymous says:
The fact is that those were not “wiki misquotes”, they were bald-faced lies planted to damage Limbaugh and recklessly repeated by others who didn’t care whether they were true or not. ‘anonymous’ (still too lazy to come up with a distinctive pseudonym) keeps insisting that Limbaugh has genuinely said some things that would offend some NFL fans, which no one denies, but pretends not to understand when it is pointed out that what he has actually said is nowhere near as offensive as what was falsely attributed to him. His bid for NFL ownership was going fine until the false quotations hit the news.
Bull-roar.
If you honestly think 100% of the owners would vote in a guy on record as having said this, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”
because it’s a lesser evil than saying slavery is good, then you honestly don’t understand business sense, marketing, or the importance of keeping a brand clean.
Limbaugh doesn’t get this, because an unclean brand is exactly what brought him to his current heights (and he’s now getting a run for his money in the competition from Beck and the likes.)
But no Virginia. The bid wasn’t going fine until then. And no NFL owners group cleared or pre-approved Rush’s bid ahead of time.
Just because this: The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. doesn’t seem offensive for the talk radio industry, just a sarcastic joke like the halfrican Americans which hey my biracial wife thinks is funny! it doesn’t entitle him to a vote for an NFL ownership.
Really — you guys just don’t get that, even as you read and reread the quote, you can’t see why he wouldn’t be welcomed with open arms on just that one alone??
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
October 17, 2009, 2:13 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Daniel, I wish. I’ve wished it elsewhere too. I’ve wished that other people who have seen red at my very existence could have put me on ignore b/c I’ve had to abandon one blog in fear that another commenter would stroke out if I said “it’s a nice day”.
October 17, 2009, 2:14 pmEMG says:
“I can complain about anything I care to complain about.”
Sure you can. Just not with consistency, or any chance of getting others to accept your point. If you even have one.
If you’re such a feminist, why are you so hot to defend Limbaugh?
October 17, 2009, 2:14 pmanonymous says:
Anytime you’re ready to begin.
No one told Jim when to run…
He missed the starting gun…
Jump in anytime fella. We’re not restarting the race just because you finally think you’re ready.
October 17, 2009, 2:14 pmanonymous says:
I, for one, have not been assuming you have any balls.
Right on Jimmy! No holds barred — hit below that belt if that’s all you got.
I’ve girded my loins in anticipation for “competitors” like you…
October 17, 2009, 2:15 pmJim Treacher says:
I wouldn’t presume to question your mastery of the non sequitur.
October 17, 2009, 2:16 pmJosh Blackman says:
According to CNN, Al Sharpton is preparing a suit against Limbaugh for defamation. This should be fun. http://bit.ly/3u4rZh
October 17, 2009, 2:17 pmJim Treacher says:
There, there.
October 17, 2009, 2:17 pmanonymous says:
Even ‘anonymous in Omaha’ or ‘anonymous1123′ would suffice, but signing all your comments ‘anonymous’ is rude.
Oh dear me. Do we have room in the kitchen for one more?
Now he’s being insulted by my choosing to post anonymously. Just think of me as “Rude Anonymous” if you must, btw — your handle makes me have bad feelings in my tummy too. Can you please think of how sensitive I am the next time you post, and stop being rude and change your name already??
I think I am entitled to that consideration at least; can we all vote on it, wouldn’t that be fair??
October 17, 2009, 2:18 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
EMG, I’m going to try this one more time, and then I’m going to stop because I’m actually boring myself to tears.
I think there ought to be repercussions when print or broadcast media distribute lies about somebody, even when that somebody is a public figure. That is my point and it’s the only one I have intended to make. It could have been Limbaugh, and it could have been Bill Ayers. It could have been Jerry Falwell and it could have been Al Sharpton. I dislike people publicly lying and getting away with it.
Now if you want to argue with me, argue with that.
October 17, 2009, 2:19 pmanonymous says:
I wouldn’t presume to question your mastery of the non sequitur.
Ah but you did, you just did it poorly instead of quoting the Floyd, like I did.
You still pecking around in my privates, Jim, hoping to land a decisive blow that way?
October 17, 2009, 2:20 pmDr. Weevil says:
Ooooh, that’s convincing! Repeat the supposedly damning quotation about Crips and Bloods three more times, as if saying the magic words three times will make a demon appear and carry your opponents off to Hell. Doesn’t seem to be working. I don’t know whether Limbaugh’s bid would have been accepted, but the simple fact that poor ‘anonymous’ doesn’t have the grace or wits to admit is that he was a bidder in good standing until he was hit with a barrage of fake quotations far more offensive than the one (one!) that ‘anonymous’ keeps chanting. The fake quotations obviously made a huge difference, and were far more effective than all the true quotations that were already well known to the public. Is there anyone in America who didn’t already know that Limbaugh has often called radical feminists ‘feminazis’?
October 17, 2009, 2:21 pmJim Treacher says:
How fitting that you’re becoming so… testy.
October 17, 2009, 2:21 pmChris_t says:
Tarheel: thanks for the heads-up on Harte Hanks v. Connaughton. It answered a question I had about defamation law that was stumping me, namely, what quantum of proof would be required to prove actual malice.
October 17, 2009, 2:21 pmgeokstr says:
Anonymous:
By never even once attempting to address the context of the “Bloods and Crips” quote, you are admitting to being nothing more than a “quote-miner”, dishonestly pulling anything you can possibly find as far out of context as you can in order to “prove” your point.
And by repeating the quote mine over and over and over and over ad nauseum, you are just using another of the left’s favorite tactics – the Big Lie. Repeat something loudly enough and often enough and hope it becomes Truth in the minds of listeners.
The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year.
October 17, 2009, 2:22 pmDave N says:
Amazing, one “anonymous” troll has managed to suck the life out of this thread (211 comments and counting) by contributing 60+ comments in a mostly uncivilized manner.
October 17, 2009, 2:23 pmJim Treacher says:
Don’t forget the song lyrics from his and/or her youth. That’s the good stuff.
October 17, 2009, 2:23 pmanonymous says:
There, there.
I know, feeling your way into new territory buddy. But really, try to land your punches above the belt. Though I don’t hold out much hope for you, you’re more likely to land a decent shot if you know where you’re aiming…
And in case you forgot: at issue is “Which came first — the divisive reputation or the misquotes, and which is it exactly that the owners were responding to in telling Rush to be a good boy and go sit back down in the mud where he belongs?”
Hint: I don’t see the NFL big group clamoring to take him back now that it’s proven the slavery and JEJones comments were false. Maybe they read this one too, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”
October 17, 2009, 2:23 pmanonymous says:
has managed to suck the life out of this thread (211 comments and counting) by contributing 60+ comments in an uncivilized manner.
Lol — you’re fixing to ask for a ban aren’t you, because pretty much the Rush fans have lost the thread, have no defense of the Blood Crips NFL quote that alone would serve to keep him out, and are feeling all insulted because you can’t get past that one.
It’s his reputation, not the misquotes people. I’m really sorry — and surprised — if I’m the first one to break that too you, and you really thought that the reason Rush was unloved was because we just didn’t understand his divisive comments — what those labels REALLY mean…
October 17, 2009, 2:26 pmJim Treacher says:
“It’s just a scratch.”
October 17, 2009, 2:26 pmDr. Weevil says:
True to form, ‘anonymous’ continues to call the libels “misquotes”, as if the quotations about slavery and James Earl Ray were almost word for word. They were not misquotations, they were lies, words put falsely in another’s mouth when he had said nothing even similar.
Of course, I never asked ‘anonymous’ to like my pseudonym, or to come up with one I like, I just suggested that he might want to pick a distinctive pseudonym so we’ll know whether we’re arguing with one anonymous troll, or two, or three.
October 17, 2009, 2:29 pmDove says:
Anonymous is downright confused. The context makes it very clear what Rush was criticizing: not the NFL at large, but classless conduct by players hyped by media. Celebration and taunting, reminiscent of what rappers and gang members sometimes do. The analogy may be overblown, but it makes the point. He wasn’t criticizing football itself. It’s constructive criticism by someone who clearly loves the game and wants it to be great.
And he thinks fans would be offended by that? That just because Anonymous couldn’t be bothered to read more than the first and last sentence, folks who actually care about the game wouldn’t? That a culture that celebrates tough competition would be bothered by a little constructive criticism?
Dude. The people who care about the game would read the full article, and would agree with the aim of a classy game and a classy league, if not necessarily Rush’s specific point. And if you think a little colorful comparison in an out-of-context quote would phase them, you clearly don’t read what they say about the league, the players, and each other–with noblest intents and in good faith!
October 17, 2009, 2:30 pmanonymous says:
ooh, that’s convincing! Repeat the supposedly damning quotation three more times, as if saying the magic words three times will make a demon appear and carry your opponents off to Hell. Don’t forget the song lyrics from his and/or her youth. That’s the good stuff.
Cmon guys. Don’t continue to make it about me. Work together, and try to put up SOME defense of how you get past this one, “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”
Just one little workable defense (context fell flat) on why not one owner would be justified on voting “no” to Rush, based on that disrespect for the brand alone.
Cmon — I’ve written it plenty of times in black and white for you to read it as it was spoken.
Whatcha got? Why should the owners group take a chance on this man — unrepentant about so much he is on record saying, and clearly divisive daily on air — how do you get past those honest quotes — forget the wiki stuff already — and come out with a defensible reputation for Mr. Limbaugh?
Now get all your personal insults toward me and my moniker out, and then maybe you’ll be ready to address that part of the game? Cuz we sure got you stopped and stumped, on that one quote alone:
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
October 17, 2009, 2:31 pmDave N says:
I haven’t expressed any comments about Rush, “anonymous” — just about YOU. I don’t care either way about whether Rush or anyone else owns (or partly owns) an NFL franchise. You, on the other hand, seem to be stuck on repeating the same quote over and over and insulting those who dare to disagree with you.
So yes, if it were in my power I would ban you. Not because of your position (there are plenty on the VC with whom I disagree on a variety of issues but who I also think are great commenters who move conversations forward) but because, as I said upthread, you are an ass.
October 17, 2009, 2:32 pmDr. Weevil says:
Insults towards you and your ‘moniker’? What moniker? The point is that you’re too lazy to pick one. Please stop lying.
October 17, 2009, 2:33 pmanonymous says:
If Anonymous was calling Laura a “halfrican american” (I don’t know what race she is, obviously), I’d be calling him out on that too.
Stop with your LIES! I know you are a poor reader, but enough.
See, one person defended Halfrican American by saying his wife is biracial and likes it. And I responded to that.
How the heck you can spin that I used Rush’s divisive language to hurt little Laura — where exactly does that level of hate or stupidity come from Daniel? Did you breathe too many fumes in the kitchen with the cookies?
October 17, 2009, 2:34 pmJim Treacher says:
No, you jump through my hoops.
October 17, 2009, 2:36 pmanonymous says:
You, on the other hand, seem to be stuck on repeating the same quote over and over and insulting those who dare to disagree with you. So yes, if it were in my power I would ban you. Not because of your position (there are plenty on the VC with whom I disagree on a variety of issues but who I also think are great commenters who move conversations forward) but because, as I said upthread, you are an ass.
Wow, such big language coming out of you now.
Guess that quote was a bigger stumper to defense of Rush’s reputation that you don’t even want to go near it, eh?
Good for you.
October 17, 2009, 2:36 pmanonymous says:
Um, my chosen moniker is “anonymous”.
Actually, it’s not lazy, it’s 9 whole letters to type.
Surely you can follow me here in this thread without my having to accommodate your special needs?
Don’t be so lazy in reading, you can do it!
October 17, 2009, 2:38 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Out of curiosity, are you just doing this for the lulz?
October 17, 2009, 2:40 pmDave N says:
So much for your reading comprehension, anonymous. I specifically said I took no position on whether Rush is allowed to invest in an NFL team (I also don’t care about any of the current owners or part-owners either). So much the inanity of your rhetorical question.
October 17, 2009, 2:41 pmanonymous says:
How fitting that you’re becoming so… testy.
I’m just not sure if the humor is coming across dear sweet Jim, but really you’re… amusing me! Very much so. Hence the Floyd quote…
No, you jump through my hoops.
*pulling Jim aside quietly* You’re mixing metaphors dear. Hoops and jumping — that’s for the basketball sport, also dominated very often by tall black men, don’t be af raid now! White men can play too, and often do. But the black men, they compete nowadays as well.
Really though Jim, are you sure you don’t want to put your home ec education to good use in the kitchen? You’re not contributing much here except to play with an anonymous commenter who clearly has you pinned on the field; you haven’t made any yardage since that Blood Crips quote effectively stumped the argument that the misquotations are the sole cause of Rush’s poor reputation and inclination by the owners not to let him in.
October 17, 2009, 2:43 pmanonymous says:
Did you ever think of going into teaching, Jim Treacher?
You might find that a more soft environment, where you could also put out students who don’t buy what you’re selling.
October 17, 2009, 2:44 pmBruce Hayden says:
What is interesting is that it appears that a lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP in NYC is the one who planted the fake Rush quote on Wikipedia. The reason to suspect a lawyer, instead of office staff (except maybe a paralegal), is that the person doing it appeared to be traveling a fair amount at the time. Of course, IP addresses can be spoofed, and so we don’t know for sure if whoever faked the quote did it from there, but it is decently likely.
On the one hand, a lawsuit against Patterson Belknap would be interesting (after all, it was done from their site by likely one of their people, and possibly even one of their owners), it would also be suicidal. Suing a reasonably large law firm is like bringing a knife to a gunfight, and the other side brings a machine gun. Or, probably a bunch of them, with maybe some aerial support JIC.
October 17, 2009, 2:45 pmtarheel says:
Good lord, what a cesspool this thread is. It’s almost bad enough to validate the Lindgren/Bernstein approach to comments (almost, but not quite). All we need is a gratuitous Palin reference and this sucker could hit 500 comments by 4 PM.
So much for discussing the law.
October 17, 2009, 2:46 pmJim Treacher says:
Try to relax. You need to pace yourself.
October 17, 2009, 2:46 pmJacob LaRow says:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Don’t feed the trolls
October 17, 2009, 2:46 pmJim Treacher says:
Did you ever think of going into learning?
October 17, 2009, 2:47 pmanonymous says:
So much for your reading comprehension, anonymous. I specifically said I took no position on whether Rush is allowed to invest in an NFL team (I also don’t care about any of the current owners or part-owners either). So much the inanity of your rhetorical question.
Oh, I read that, and sorry for not spelling out the obvious but, I disregarded your position based on your earlier comments and the reputation you earned yourself in my eyes from them.
But mama told me not to talk to people who call others names like “ass” when they get down and that’s all they have left, so please keep your little potty mouth flapping.
October 17, 2009, 2:47 pmbpbatista says:
Were any of the CNN or MSNBC segments broadcast in the UK? If so, Rush should sue them there. Libel suits are a whole different ball game in the UK.
October 17, 2009, 2:47 pmDr. Weevil says:
Yes, Daniel Chapman, he’s just a common troll who gets his jollies misrepresenting other peoples’ arguments, pretending that if he never admits he’s wrong that’s the same as being right, and just generally never shutting up. We should probably all feel ashamed of having wasted time arguing with him. (Note that he continues to insist that the libels were only “misquotations” even when he’s been called on it twice, and to pretend that his Blood and Crips argument was not decisively refuted by Dove in his 2:30pm comment.)
October 17, 2009, 2:48 pmanonymous says:
Try to relax. You need to pace yourself.
Oh Jimmy. I’ve lapped you like 100 times already, and you’re still advising others on how to play their games.
You really are a cute one. Do you fold laundry too?
ps. This is the cutest comeback ever: Did you ever think of going into teaching, Jim Treacher? Did you ever think of going into learning?
Now, do you want me to play along: “I asked you first!!”
Just adorable you are.
October 17, 2009, 2:50 pmEric Jablow says:
At least one sportswriter agreed with Rush Limbaugh at the time. Here is an article by Allan Barra on Slate in October 2003. Okay, McNabb may have improved later, but this was Barra’s judgement:
Now, sports-team owners are notoriously risk-adverse. They game the system to ensure constant revenue streams unrelated to actual performance. Heck, they game the system to have taxpayers pay their building expenses! They want featureless owners that won’t raise a fuss; ones like Mark Cuban, George Steinbrenner, and Ted Turner, Jerry Jones, and the late Bill Veeck are the exception, not the rule. That may be reason enough to exclude Rush Limbaugh from the ownership list.
But depending on Wikipedia for stories like that is reprehensible. That CNN did not check quotations it saw there is reckless. Worse, it was lazy.
You know–when I see some NFL teams these days, I see boorish behavior; people doing sack dances while their team trails 7-28 with ten minutes to play, or gloating about touchdowns while trailing by 30. I’m not so sure Rush’s gangland intimation is so far off. Given the criminal incidents NFL players (and sportswriters) have been involved in, one could be persuaded in its justice.
October 17, 2009, 2:50 pmB-Rob says:
He called Sonia Sotomayor a racist. He made it up, since there was no factual basis for the statement. So your original thesis, that he does not lie, is not only wrong, it is demonstrably wrong.
October 17, 2009, 2:51 pmDaniel Chapman says:
I always get a giggle when I see references from “certain corners of the net” on volokh.com. I laughed out loud when some guest blogger mentioned “boxxy” in a serious discussion about wikipedia governance.
October 17, 2009, 2:51 pmJim Treacher says:
Why not 1,000? 1,000,000? Dare to dream.
October 17, 2009, 2:52 pmDr. Weevil says:
Did ‘anonymous’ just promise not to argue with anyone who calls him “ass”? Maybe if we all call him “ass” he’ll go away? It’s not like anyone would have to lie or anything to do that.
October 17, 2009, 2:52 pmChrisTS says:
Wow. Look, Anonymous, if you wanted the thread to focus on why the NFL did not want Limbaugh involved – other than because of the CNN report – you could have simply said that. Perhaps you would have had to repeat it or provide further arguments. I, for one, do think his reputation as a loud and divisive personality preceded him, if not with the person who invited him to contribute funds.
But, rather than focus on your argument and keep to it, you have engaged in the worst kind of thread-derailing: the kind that turns on childish, personal insults and vulgar taunting.
If you were a regular around here, you would know that Laura is generally a fair-minded contributor. But you just assumed she was a right-winger fan of Limbaugh’s with no more objective concern for truth, and you went at her in a very offensive way.
So, at this point, even though I agree with your perspective on the Limbaugh-NFL story, I wish you had never appeared here.
October 17, 2009, 2:54 pmJim Treacher says:
I wouldn’t impugn the human colon with the comparison.
October 17, 2009, 2:55 pmJacob LaRow says:
Dr. Weevil
It’s troll-fu is strong, I’ll give it that much. 8/10
October 17, 2009, 2:55 pmChrisTS says:
I have a query about the use of ‘anonymous’ as a handle: why can any number of people post using the very same handle, but only when it is that one?
There are several of us named ‘Chris,’ but we must find some unique variation on it to post. The same is true for the several ‘Daves.’
I do not think it rude to post as ‘anonymous,’ but it can be confusing when there is more than one person doing so.
October 17, 2009, 2:58 pmBruce Hayden says:
One problem with anonymous blogging (or, as we saw with the faked Rush quote, pseudo-anonymous Wikipedia editing) is a lack of accountability, and as a result of that, people saying things that they would never say personally.
I frankly don’t remember anyone in recent memory so hijacking a thread at this blog. And, I have to think that the anonymous blogging is part of why he is so blatant. I expect that EV will eventually get around to doing something about it, if this anonymous blogging continues to be abused, but that always ruins some of the spontaneity of the discussions.
My general rule of thumb is that if someone blogs anonymously, esp. when using that as his “name”, I discount anything he says, on general principles. If he isn’t willing to put his name out there, then whatever he says probably isn’t worth reading. And, interestingly, this blog has a higher percentage of named bloggers than pretty much any other that I participate in – which is possibly one reason that it is usually so good.
October 17, 2009, 2:59 pmChrisTS says:
Just Checking (This entry posted by Daniel Chapman)
October 17, 2009, 3:00 pmWm Tanksley says:
I should make an invention named “speech” so that my company can be specifically named in the Constitution, too. “The freedom of the press” is parallel to “freedom of speech” — both are actions. Your right to print may not be infringed by the US Congress.
-Wm
October 17, 2009, 3:00 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Yeah I didn’t think your premises were accurate there, Chris… Under the new blog software, there is no more username registration. Anyone can post on any handle.
I expressed concern with this new “feature” immediately, but apparently the Overlords aren’t worried.
October 17, 2009, 3:01 pmanonymous says:
Note that he continues to insist that the libels were only “misquotations” even when he’s been called on it twice, and to pretend that his Blood and Crips argument was
not decisively refuted by Dove in his 2:30pm comment.)
Oh, back on topic. Love it, finally.
1) false quotations/ misquotations — no matter. There’s plenty of on the record Limbaugh comments like well, here’s one: The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
2) A reputation is based on the statements above, and other acknowledged statements like the labels “feminazi” and “halfrican American”.
Personally, plenty of people think “that’s Rush being Rush. He’s gotta make his $$ somehow.”
If you honestly think that anyone’s opinion of his reputation built over the years changes with these defenses though:
1) not all women are referred to as feminazis, just the bad ones.
2) my biracial wife thinks “halfricanAMerican” is funny; why don’t you”?
3) he said that NFL comment about the Blood and Crips only with these paragraphs of qualifiers above…. (whatever)
The point is: the reputation stands. We who hold Rush in low esteem because his schtick is built on being divisive and targeting “groups” don’t care to listen or read more to “understand” how wise he really is in selectively targeting members of those groups. Don’t care.
You got a point to make? Do it without the “feminazi” label, or calling someone a “halfricanAmerican”.
He wants to be divisive, not make coherent arguments, and he feeds off the angry people who think like he does. But don’t mistake that for a majority, or even a decent-sized small minority. People listen sure, but do they all agree?
Whose responsibility is it to rehab a reputation anyway? Not mine.
The NFL owners made an honest, smart business decision. Not based on misquotes/false quotes, but based on the Rush record. You might love him for that in context; plenty don’t.
The owners couldn’t risk bringing on a potential hater like that, and no amount of spin will change that. Sorry if you don’t want to hear these facts and somehow feel offended that your man is misunderstood. Maybe he is, but it’s a misunderstanding he has deliberately courted.
Now, his reputation instead of bringing him things, has cost him something. So what? Keep on doing what you do, those who want to listen will, those who will think he’s more decisive than intellectual can continue to tune him out, and hold their own opinions about the man’s reputation.
If you think differently, fine too. But let’s not forget there are plenty of NFL fans/players who would be put off by Rush owning a team, and the business owners didn’t even have to vote on whether they wanted such a person in their club.
Don’t be such sore losers, people? The final scoreboard shows Rush lost on this one. Deal with it, because that is the reality of the country. He turns off more people than it’s worth having him keep the Rams in St. Louis.
October 17, 2009, 3:03 pmanonymous says:
I frankly don’t remember anyone in recent memory so hijacking a thread at this blog.
Do you have a specific complaint about something I’ve written Bruce, or just a problem with the number of comments here responding to the digs of others?
If the former, please do tell.
If the latter, sour grapes.
October 17, 2009, 3:05 pmB-Rob says:
I just want to follow the logic here: some NFL players do “boorish” things on the field, and some engage in criminal behavior, therefore it is “justice” to refer to the all the players of the predominately minority league by comparing it to two notoriously murderous street gangs in LA? That’s your take? OK. You have a weird definition of “justice”, dude! Especially when you then turn around a boo-hoo for felon Rush Limbaugh.
Another question: why, then, is it not similarly “justice” to brand as racist a person who has made sweeping generalizations about a predominately minority business enterprise, the NFL? Why isn’t it “fair game” to attribute racially callous remarks to a person who has admittedly made similar racially callous remarks in the past? See, this is the one thing you cons refuse to accept: Rush Limbaugh is widely seen as a racist; not because of any false statements made about him on Wikipedia, but because the the crap spewing from his own fat mouth.
Here is Rush’s problem: as my late wife, who worked with him in Sacramento back in the early 80s put it, “he is a pig.” He is just a loathsome person and he is getting back in spades what he has dished out. He has called other public figures “racist” based on no actual racist conduct, he has called Jesse Jackson a “shake down artist” which is attributing criminal conduct to a person. He said, falsely, that Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms of Parkinson’s. So Rush is now upset because he is called a racist? Well, sorry Rush. You destroyed your own reputation long ago, so a mere lie attributing pro-slavery commentary to a person who habitually makes proto-racist “fun” of minorities is just gonna have to be stomached. I bet you now know how Jesse Jackson, Obama and Michael J. Fox feel about you slandering them.
October 17, 2009, 3:06 pmFalafalafocus says:
I stepped out for a while and I see that anonymous responded to my request for an explanation as to how the bloods v. Crips comment, in context, does not support the racism charge. In response, anonymous asserted 1) context is irrelevant (an interesting appproach to be sure), 2) rush has a reputation for racism (even though your proof does not support it, and you refuse to support it), and 3) rush is generally decisive. The third argument might have merit if you didn’t immediately fall back to the bloods v. Crips quote. But please feel free to patronize me in response.
October 17, 2009, 3:07 pmanonymous says:
At least one sportswriter agreed with Rush Limbaugh at the time. Here is an article by Allan Barra on Slate in October 2003. Okay, McNabb may have improved later
Yes, it’s a fact that McNabb led his team to victory, quoting wiki, he “led the Eagles to four consecutive NFC East division championships (2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004), five NFC Championship Games (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2008), and one Super Bowl (Super Bowl XXXIX, in which the Eagles were defeated by the New England Patriots).”
So while I’m sure Rush is always glad to have company for his opinions, as demonstrated on this thread, it doesn’t make his opinions anymore accurate — as demonstrated by McNabb’s history of success in the league.
That too — seeing how history plays itself out — is an important part in evaluating anyone’s overall reputation.
Rush got it wrong –McNabb’s worth as a player. Imagine that, and wonder what else he might be opining on divisively, that will prove untrue in years to come?
(Absolute faith is not a condition of listening, is it? Surely not all those radios tuned in means they are all Rush supporters, right? I’d say, the NFL made a good business call, as did ESPN in choosing to let him go way back when.)
October 17, 2009, 3:10 pmDaniel Chapman says:
He’s a pro, Bruce. Successful Troll is Successful.
October 17, 2009, 3:11 pmB-Rob says:
I am sure you can provide some support for this claim. In addition, to make Fergie a proper comparator for Rush, you should also link to her felony drug arrest record, her history of racially insensitive remarks, and her past habit of labeling minority establishment figures “racist” or anti-White. Once you show me all those facts, then I will believe Rush got a bum deal.
October 17, 2009, 3:11 pmtamerlane says:
My thanks to those posters who have kept anonymous busy trying to annoy his betters. Like most readers of this thread, I’ve entirely skipped over all but his very first comments. But I’m savoring the image of this pathetic twerp fatuously pounding away on his keyboard and being diverted from causing real annoyance elsewhere.
October 17, 2009, 3:13 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that it is at least partially historical. Pretty much from the start of the Internet, there has been a provision for Anonymous access using that word as the identifier. For example, FTP has traditionally allowed anonymous access, using “Anonymous” as the user id. Often you need to input an email address as the password, but it allows for pretty much unrestricted access to (portions of) an FTP site, without the necessity of setting up accounts. Indeed, it is likely that much of your access to FTP sites, at least via the WWW, is as the user “Anonymous”.
October 17, 2009, 3:13 pmDave N says:
Daniel Chapman,
I agree. Eugene should figure a way to have everyone register so that each nom de blog has exactly one holder. If anyone can use anyone else’s name (I am assuming you were spoofing ChrisTS and not vice versa), we could end up with some regular people “saying” some rather outlandish things these people never actually say.
(I Have visions of someone posting as “RandyR” writing a stirring defense of Anita Bryant or a pseudo-”Dangermouse” praising President Obama. Both thoughts make me shudder)
October 17, 2009, 3:13 pmDr. Weevil says:
“The final scoreboard shows Rush lost on this one.” It also shows that he lost because the other side blatantly cheated, a fact that our sleazy troll cannot bring himself to admit. He keeps quoting mildly offensive or even merely controversial things Limbaugh really said, and ignoring the truly vile things he didn’t say, that many people thought he said because some anonymous people lied about him. The fact that anonymous liars have so much power worries most decent people, but it doesn’t seem to worry ‘anonymous’. He keeps insisting on how bad Rush’s reputation is without considering that he and people like him have made it worse by willfully misrepresenting it.
He also writes: “But let’s not forget there are plenty of NFL fans/players who would be put off by Rush owning a team”. True, but let’s not forget there is a rather large overlap between NFL fans (and players) and Rush Limbaugh listeners, and the owners who panicked and dumped him from the bid may well find that they have lost more fans than they have gained or retained. Telling 20 million people that their kind is not welcome in the NFL is not usually a good idea.
October 17, 2009, 3:16 pmJim Treacher says:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533424,00.html
October 17, 2009, 3:19 pmJim Treacher says:
Yes, I understand that you don’t like him.
October 17, 2009, 3:22 pmLarry Sheldon says:
I’m gonna go back and read the comments here, so I may find that this has been covered….
I am not a lawyer, so I therefor believe the answer is–No. No case because:
He is a male.
October 17, 2009, 3:25 pmHe is a white male.
He is a white male older than 25.
He is a white male older than 25 whose name is well-known.
He is a white male older that 25 whose name is well-known and who is well-known for espousing logic,
responsibility, freedom, and independence.
B-Rob says:
Not so fast, sonny. What are you calling the “damages” from the reportage: damage to his reputation (recoverable) or damage from being dropped from Dave Checkett’s bid? CNN is about three steps of culpability from being responsible for him being dropped. Black players protested him being included BEFORE I heard anything about the fake quotes. Rush had a drug problem and a felony record BEFORE anyone even posted the fake quotes. And Jim Irsay opposed him BEFORE Checketts dropped him. Then the Commissioner himself opposed Rush. But even better, since Checketts had no yet won the bid, Rush actually lost nothing more than a chance to compete. The Rams owners have not even sold the team, yet. So it is entirely speculative to blame CNN for him losing something that he (a) has not yet lost, (b) did not have a sure chance of winning, where (c) he faced other parties opposing him because of his racial issues.
October 17, 2009, 3:27 pmanonymous says:
The people who care about the game would read the full article, and would agree with the aim of a classy game and a classy league, if not necessarily Rush’s specific point.
No way.
It’s hard enough to get people to read these days, you really think a black woman or even a halfricanAmerican is going to give Rush the benefit of the doubt and wade through his “context” when he comes us with gems like this:
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
Why not 1,000? 1,000,000? Dare to dream.
If’n you’d played any sports, you’d understand it’s classless to run up the score against lesser opponents. Sometimes, you pity them so much, you even hate to take the field against them.
Which is why I pratically begged you to stop trying to beat me with personal insults, and just head into the kitchen where maybe your hidden skills lie. (?) Nothing wrong with knowing when you’ve been beat, and when you’re really becoming more a concern troll than concerned with discussing Rush’s reputation and how so many of us came to believe what we believe about him.
(hint: it ain’t based on anything recently reported from wiki)
October 17, 2009, 3:27 pm24AheadDotCom says:
Way back in June, I discussed one of the bogus quotes and contacted the publisher of the book where they appeared. I sent them three emails (using the form on their site) back in June, and never heard back. The fact that they knew in June at the latest that the quotes were questionable or bogus would seem to be quite important.
October 17, 2009, 3:29 pmJim Treacher says:
And nothing wrong with trying to ref the game you’re playing in. It’s funny.
October 17, 2009, 3:29 pmanonymous says:
It also shows that he lost because the other side blatantly cheated, a fact that our sleazy troll cannot bring himself to admit.
I’m hanging my hat on one sentence. If you can prove to me that this quote was made up out of whole clother, then I’d consider whether the other side “cheated” and his reputation was damaged only recently. Ready for it?
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
If Mr. Limbaugh indeed said that above, then the burden swing to you to prove that the NFL owners were somehow acting in anything other than their own business interests in refusing to even entertain an ownership bid from him.
Doesn’t belong. Based on his own words and thoughts. Kinda the opposite of that old Marx quote, “I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me.”
October 17, 2009, 3:31 pmB-Rob says:
Larry, I am not even sure I should respond to this drivel, but as a lawyer who defends libel cases in the employment context, you should know that the VAST MAJORITY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGING LIBEL will fall into the over 25 white male catagory. Your little list above tends to imply you are more into the whole “white male victimology” shtick that anything factual.
The reason Rush will not sue: he would not want to be deposed about his actual conduct, which defines his character.
The reason Rush could never win: He is a drug addict with a felony record and a history of racially inflamatory comments. He illegally procured drugs through his maid, then tried to hang her out to dry. Try taking that to trial and claiming his “reputation” was ruined by two false comments that were about as inflamatory as the b.s. he has admitted saying.
October 17, 2009, 3:32 pmDale says:
This is such a silly post. Mr. Adler must certainly know that public figures almost never prevail in defamation lawsuits because it is so difficult to establish reckless disregard. If he filed such a lawsuit, it would probably end up with Limbaugh in the same boat as General William Westmoreland. Here is link for those too young to remember how that turned out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Westmoreland#Westmoreland_v._CBS:_The_Uncounted_Enemy
A more interesting point, IMHO, is that Limbaugh is very unlikely to ever file such a suit because of the discovery and cross-examination it would expose him too. Limbaugh generally only appears in friendly venues or forums he controls. He occasionally gives an interview to the mainstream media, but that is very different to subjecting himself to cross-examination under oath by an attorney who has every incentive to make him like a fool or a fake, and does not have to worry about booking future guests. This particular quote was apparently fake, but defense counsel would have plenty of ammunition pulled from real quotes to make Limbaugh squirm on the witness stand. The more I think about, the more I wish he would sue.
October 17, 2009, 3:33 pmB-Rob says:
Jim, you did not respond to the substance of my question. Please explain how Fergie and Rush are similar, starting with proof of her drug addiction and her felony record. Loop in her history of racial comments, too. You brought her up as a comparator, now prove the comparison is rational. This has nothing to do with whether I “like” him or not. It has to do with the factual basis for your comparison.
October 17, 2009, 3:36 pmDave N says:
B-rob,
As a matter of clarification (and something I remember from law school as “libel per se”) but RL does not have “a felony record.”
If you are a lay person then I can overlook your confusion between a deferred prosecution and a conviction — and they are substantial.
If you are an attorney, shame on you.
October 17, 2009, 3:37 pmJim Treacher says:
Presumably you know how to click on a hyperlink. Or is a direct quote in Time Magazine insufficient?
October 17, 2009, 3:37 pmBruce Hayden says:
Of course, that is where it becomes overtly political, with the guy representing the players having been on the Obama transition team.
In the end though, I think that Rush will come out of this a tiny bit richer, CNN a tiny bit poorer (from a tarnishment of its reputation, and not any law suit) (and no wonder Ted Turner is trying to get control back). It is a bit like the Obama Administration going after Fox News. Every time they do, ratings go up for Fox, and down for CNN and MSNBC. And Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank. As someone pointed out a day or so ago, both Rush and Murdoch are in the business of entertainment, and ratings is how you make your money there.
October 17, 2009, 3:38 pmanonymous says:
In other words, I don’t care that people blatantly lied about him. Good grief, how many times do I have to say this, people? I DON’T CARE IF PEOPLE LIED ABOUT HIM. He said something offensive to me, which other people of my intelligence, such as NFL owners, could also find offensive, therefore, it does not matter what else is said or done.
October 17, 2009, 3:39 pmJim Treacher says:
YES, WE’VE NOTICED.
What an unwarranted insult to NFL owners.
October 17, 2009, 3:40 pmB-Rob says:
Dale, I bet if CNN teamed up with the United Negro College Fund and raffled the opportunity to take Rush’s deposition, UNCF would clear millions. He is a libel defense attorney’s dream: a loudmouth public figure with four ex-wives, a felony drug conviction, and a history of racial comments, including calling a recently elected and popular president “a racist”. That would be too much fun! You could spend an entire day on his drug issues and his felony conviction, alone. Rush will whine to his listeners about how he was wronged and they will buy what he is selling. But he will never ever ever sue.
October 17, 2009, 3:43 pmBruce Hayden says:
I am not sure that this distinction would be sufficient to support a judgment of libel per se. Plus, by the time I went to law school, some 20 years ago, most of the per se defamation had been watered down to a great extent. Calling a woman a “slut” is probably no longer sufficient, nor is false attribution of someone having contracted an STD.
I will agree though that the distinction here between being a lawyer and not would probably be important – the laity are likely to be excused for ignoring the difference, whereas a lawyer would likely not be.
October 17, 2009, 3:44 pmChrisTS says:
Ohh: that explains the ‘just checking’?
October 17, 2009, 3:44 pmJim Treacher says:
TRY ENGLISH.
October 17, 2009, 3:44 pmDaniel Chapman says:
Oh god now there’s two of him.
He is Anonymous… He is Legion… and we’re all screwed!
October 17, 2009, 3:47 pmJim Treacher says:
LOOKS LIKE HE’S FINALLY LOST WHATEVER’S LEFT OF HIS MIND. MY WORK HERE IS DONE.
October 17, 2009, 3:49 pmDave N says:
B-rob,
As I mentioned above, RL does not have a “felony drug conviction” or a felony conviction of any other kind. I am not sure how one can spend more than 35 seconds on the following question and answer sequence:
Q: Do you have a felony conviction.
A: No.
Q: What about the Florida doctor shopping charge?
A: There was no felony conviction.
I hope you are not a lawyer. If you are, you are giving the profession a very bad name. If you are not, then you sound like someone who thinks you know what happens in deposition because you watch Boston Legal and used to watch L.A. Law.
October 17, 2009, 3:51 pmLarry Sheldon says:
This place reeks.
October 17, 2009, 3:52 pmJim Treacher says:
(If it matters to anybody but “anonymous,” I have not posted as “anonymous” in this thread. And I didn’t make the last post signed with my name. Have a great weekend, everybody!)
October 17, 2009, 3:52 pmB-Rob says:
Obama “going after” Fox? Hardly. They just called them an arm of the GOP and refuse to accomodate them. It is hardly “going after” someone when you ignore them.
On CNN’s reputation: this will not affect it. First, the idea that Rush would say something racist would not surprise anyone, so it is easy to see why they might have been snowed by a false quote. Second, the people most outraged by Rush’s treatment, the dittoheads, don’t watch CNN anyway. They like Fox. Third, no one who is pro-Rush really wants to deal with the heart of the matter, which is his ACTUAL reputation in the public, not what dittoheads think about him.
I am sure Mrs. Dahmer thought Jeff was a nice boy, but his public persona was, shall we say, a bit tarnished by his conduct. Rush is a drug addict with a felony record. He has a history of racially offensive comments and the false ones merely added two extra logs to the cord. Take away those false quotes and what do you have? A drug addict with a felony record, four ex-wives, and a documented history of racially offensive comments. Not much to work with, that.
October 17, 2009, 3:52 pmJim Treacher says:
(That one wasn’t me either. Nor will any subsequent comments be me. Okay, seriously, I’m off to dinner. Have a good one!)
October 17, 2009, 3:55 pmanonymous says:
Hmm… that earlier second anonymous formatting … looks a little like Laura, who was indenting all her quotes.
THAT YOU LAURA?
IN CAHOOTS WITH DANIEL AND JIM TO POST AS SOMEONE ELSE HERE?
October 17, 2009, 3:55 pmBruce Hayden says:
I think that you would be surprised (even ignoring that he doesn’t have a felony conviction). He would have a chance to point out, for example, that the reason that he called the President a “racist” (assuming he did) was that said President was race baiting, and then he could start giving examples, like when he took the side of the Harvard professor over the cop before hearing the evidence.
Indeed, let me suggest that asking Rush about his “felony conviction” is the sort of thing that would get the other lawyer sanctioned and a mistrial if it were a criminal trial.
Also, keep in mind that Rush grew up in a household of lawyers – his grandfather, father, and brother were/are lawyers. So, he may be able to keep the damage to a minimum.
That said, I have been told that CEOs are often some of the worst witnesses possible. They don’t take prepping very well, can’t keep their mouths shut when they should, and can get caught up in the details, since they are typically not the detail guys. And, Rush may have the same problems.
But, despite all of our wishes to see what happens, I don’t expect to see it.
October 17, 2009, 3:56 pmanonymous says:
Well Jim, since you responsed to the anonymous second poster pretending to be me, you are just like those media outlets that picked up the fake quotes and ran with them.
You guys really want to “win” so bad that you have to cheapen the thread because somebody deliberately chooses to post under anonymous, a singular handle up until then in the thread?
CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP and being that there was the earlier discussion of how easy it was to sign in as another, you tainted yourself too.
I’ll be looking for you on other threads now, since the posting as others, and celebrating multiple appearances, appears to be fair game now.
October 17, 2009, 3:58 pmDave N says:
B-rob,
You might be more persuasive if you were factually accurate. I have called you out twice. You have now repeated the canard about a “felony conviction” a third time. There is no “felony conviction.”
October 17, 2009, 3:59 pmDrWyrm says:
It would have been less obvious that anonymous was posting as Jim Treacher if he had bothered to put jimtreacher.com in the website field before posting like Jim Treacher does.
October 17, 2009, 4:00 pmChrisTS says:
So, I guess we have good evidence for EV that registered names are necessary.
October 17, 2009, 4:01 pmB-Rob says:
Dave N. I can tell you are not a lawyer, because your examination sucked. You would ask him:
Q. Have you been arrested? What for? When? Were you indicted? Yada yada yada.
Get the picture? And another thing: Rush did have a felony conviction; you may not with is were so, but he did. If I recall correctly, he was given conditions under which it could be reversed and expunged. But mark my words, Dave, if you run an FBI check on him, it pops up with a felony drug conviction — as it should. Trust me, Dave, those convictions never REALLY go away. Rush is lucky he is rich, because in Ohio, with that record, he would not be able to teach public school, work in a bank, etc.
But these are other facts that shed light on his character, Dave: Rush is an addict. He used his maid to mule for him, instead of buying it in a parking lot somewhere, the way all the other hillbilly heroin addicts do. So he is a person willing to corrupt another person to get his fix and avoid the risk of getting caught. He is not only an addict, he is also loathsome enough that he was putting his maid, a woman in a position of significantly less power and prestige, at risk for a criminal conviction to keep himself out of the spotlight and insulated from arrest. That, my friends, is what he would have to admit to as we examine his “character” under oath.
October 17, 2009, 4:03 pmDave N says:
If this thread doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for that premise, nothing will.
October 17, 2009, 4:04 pmDr. Weevil says:
B-Rob:
October 17, 2009, 4:06 pmHow is “Rush is an addict” not a lie? Do you have any evidence that he failed to kick the habit years ago? And what should we think of your character when you make statements like that?
Bruce Hayden says:
I am not sure that it gets that far. The attorney asking the question knows that Rush doesn’t have a felony conviction, and so the reason for asking the question is purely to unfairly prejudice the jury.
Of course, I don’t try jury cases, and have only done so once in my career (and, surprisingly, won, but not through my legal acumen). So, I would be interested is hearing from attorneys who are experienced here as to the point at which they would object to this line of questioning.
On the other hand, I think that a good lawyer may be able to get the charge before the jury and that the charges were settled with the delayed prosecution.
October 17, 2009, 4:06 pmMichael Smith says:
So we are to understand that the following is somehow evidence that Limbaugh doesn’t belong in the NFL:
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
Looked at in full context, I see nothing at all wrong with this quote.
Here is the full context:
http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/rush-limbaughs-nfl-bloods-vs-crips-quote-in-full-context/
If you read that, you’ll see that Rush is complaining about the taunting, the dancing-after-sacks, dancing on the other team’s logo after the game, stomping on the other team’s “terrrible towels”, etc.
Context is everything.
October 17, 2009, 4:07 pmDale says:
Let me add that those who claim that Rush is somehow unfairly victimized seem deliberately blind or hopelessly dense. Sports is a zone where those of different races, backgrounds and political views can bond without regard to what separates us. In his ESPN blunder, Rush was basically forcing viewers to think about affirmative action while watching a football game. That may be an important debate to have, but most viewers want to escape that kind of stuff while watching sports, which for most of us is a DIVERSION. Besides he is unpopular in the African-American community and is a lightning rode for controversy. He actively tries to promote controversy, and if no one noticed, unlike other owners, he broadcasts 15 hours of radio a week in a highly visible forum. Every time Limbaugh says something outrageous on his radio show (or perceived so by large numbers of NFL fans), the controversy would spill over on the NFL. Why in the world would the NFL want to voluntarily undertake such an association? I can’t think of a reason. The NFL had every right to reject him as an owner, and they would be crazy not to. I still don’t understand the argument that the NFL did something wrong.
October 17, 2009, 4:07 pmB-Rob says:
Dave, I just responded. Exhaustively. You know what I would have with me if I deposed Rush? Every document in the entire criminal case, and his b.s. lawsuit where he tried to stop the prosecutor for doing discovery of his perscriptions. Maybe I would depose his maid first, though, to get in the record what he was asking her to do.
Let Rush claim he has no felony record, like you did, then I whip out the FBI crimninal background check, his mug shot, all the pleadings, his arrest record, his felony plea, etc.
C’mon, dude! He is a convicted felon! It may have been expunged (I am not sure) but under examination, he not only has to admit the conviction, but MORE IMPORTANTLY the facts he admitted in his plea. THAT is Rush Limbaugh’s character on display and I have not even gotten to his false statement about Michel J. Fox. Let him explain why that was not slander, how it did not destroy MJF’s comparatively sterling character, etc. It would be such a fun deposition. A shame, almost, that he will never sue!
October 17, 2009, 4:10 pmDave N says:
B-rob,
I am not only a lawyer but a felony prosecutor. I also provided a Slate link that included an image of the signed agreement’s first page. So, either you were not (to paraphrase A Few Good Men), paying attention the day they taught law in law school or you are not a lawyer.
I prefer to think the latter because you are disgrace to the profession if the former is true.
October 17, 2009, 4:11 pmanonymous says:
Context is everything
And as Dale noted above, most people don’t follow sports to wade through “context” of why you are making divisive claims like this:
The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.
He said what?? Nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt in explaining what he meant by the Bloods and Crips language, the feminazi labels, the halfricanAmericans etc.
You want to insult, fine. We don’t care and can take it. But stop whining if people don’t care enough about your cheap pronouncements to delve into further detail about what your really meant by those deliberately divisive comments.
October 17, 2009, 4:12 pmBruce Hayden says:
Maybe, maybe not. You are using the present tense, and not the past tense. If you were using the later, I would not quibble with you. This comes down to the definition of what is an addict? Are you going to define someone who hasn’t drunk for 30 years an alcoholic because they believe they would be if they ever took a drink again? Is that the point that you are trying to make? Or are you asserting that Rush is still taking those high dosages of pain meds? If so, what is your source? Is it as reliable as CNN’s was here?
October 17, 2009, 4:12 pmCato The Elder says:
Is it not CNN, and supporters of CNN, who are the ones damaging the state of our “discourse” here, not Rush Limbaugh? Surely journalists promulgating flat-out falsehoods is worse than rhetorical hyperbole from self-admitted entertainers. Yet we know almost as surely that Thomas Friedman and Bobo Brooks aren’t going to point that fact out in their next editorials. Because when you’re as malodorous as Mr. Limbaugh, you must be stopped at any cost, even at the cost of principle.
October 17, 2009, 4:14 pmB-Rob says:
The Bloods and the Crips are criminals. Drug dealers and murderers. Rush compared NFL players to drug dealers and murderers. Rush compared the predominately Black NFL players to criminals. You may think Rush did nothing wrong, but unless you are an NFL player, what he said did not affect you. It did affect them because he was talking about them.
Rush should not be suprised if the NFL wanted nothing to do with him . . . especially given HIS criminal background! Just ask Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. how they feel about owners with criminal issues. Eddie got a deal similar to Rush’s and he was pushed out by the NFL, too. The Greeks don’t want no freaks . . . .
October 17, 2009, 4:17 pmanonymous says:
Are you going to define someone who hasn’t drunk for 30 years an alcoholic because they believe they would be if they ever took a drink again? Is that the point that you are trying to make? Or are you asserting that Rush is still taking those high dosages of pain meds? If so, what is your source?
It wasn’t alcohol, and it wasn’t 30 years ago though Bruce.
Once an addict, always an addict. That’s the thinking in many circles.
So he’s stopped himself from consuming, or having his mule bring him drugs. Still an addict, just one not currently getting his illegal pills like before.
Lots of people have that impression of addiction, Bruce. It’s like a reputation.
October 17, 2009, 4:19 pmDale says:
That is probably true, but no good defense attorney would ask that question. Rather they would ask him whether he had his maid serve as his drug mule. If he sued for damage to reputation, that would almost certainly come into evidence. You and I agree that Rush isn’t going anywhere near a court room with this.
October 17, 2009, 4:24 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
anonymous has been posting numerous items in this thread pretending to be other regular commenters. I have removed the offending posts that I was able to identify, and I am closing the comments on this thread.
JHA
October 17, 2009, 4:25 pmMichael Smith says:
But stop whining if people don’t care enough about your cheap pronouncements to delve into further detail about what your really meant by those deliberately divisive comments.
I’m not whining — I’m pointing out that you cannot establish the meaning of a statement independent of its context.
When you read it in context, it is obviously NOT racist. And anyone who refuses to consider context is being irrational.
It is preposterous to demand that every statement a person makes must be fully self-contained and not dependent on any supporting information or reasoning. Nothing justifies such a notion, and you are only pushing it because you are desperate to find some grounds on which to criticize Limbaugh.
If this is all you have, you have nothing.
October 17, 2009, 4:26 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by wiselaw: Does Limbaugh Have a Libel Suit Against CNN? http://bit.ly/2U0lZF...
October 18, 2009, 10:43 amMonday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath says:
[...] it has a perspective” … just like all the rest. Speaking of which [...]
October 19, 2009, 9:09 amStones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e90v1 says:
[...] it has a perspective” … just like all the rest. Speaking of which [...]
October 19, 2009, 9:10 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Does Limbaugh Have a Libel …- Inside Information – Conspiracy Theories says:
[...] And by the way, I haven’t heard anyone (especially Rush himself) mention a possible lawsuit over this. This is probably just the Conspiracy mulling over a fun legal question that will never see a suit filed. … So sure, CNN screwed up . News at 11, man bites dog. I have a hard time believing malice given his recent history of claiming metaphoric anal rape at the, er, hands of our new black overlord. Those words are undeniable, as is his history of making… interesting … The rest is here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Does Limbaugh Have a Libel … [...]
October 22, 2009, 9:41 am