C@LAg said:that does not count when you outright state something as a fact - that this person IS a white supremacist.Ag in Tiger Country said:
They'll hide behind the lawsuit defenses provided by "entertainment" &/or "opinion", plus the standard is harder for a public figure to prove slander; HOWEVER, a favorable jurisdiction with a favorable judge may help him overcome these.
There is NO evidence that this is the case. There is no "opinion" or "entertainment" here to hide behind.
Firstly, I agree that MSNBC should be held liable, especially in the court of public opinion, BUT NY Times v. Sullivan affords great leniency to the press when blabbering about 'public affairs', and by extension, 'public officials', which already has long-standing precedent; consequently, the plaintiff must show that the speaker acted with "actual malice" or "reckless disregard" of the truth in order to win a libel suit. So naturally a critical determination is if speaking in hyperbole for entertainment purposes, does such throw-up a roadblock towards a malice determination? Conversely, if he can show that, even if her derogatory statement is deemed an opinion, such was uttered with reckless disregard & offered to harm his reputation. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that MSNBC caters to a targeted audience of unhinged leftist, so it can be countered that the obvious leftist slant of their content is solely entertainment for their targeted audience rather than statements of fact (or opinions disguised as fact) that aren't meant as truthful statements intended for the average layperson to rely upon for their veracity. Additionally, MSNBC would not have any trouble digging up some bull**** article or study of apparent legitimacy as a source it utilized to justify their statement of fact/opinion, which in so doing, could negate a determination the statement was made with malice rather as an informative segment about a topic "meant to start a discussion/ conversation" (or whatever the buzz phrase Dems use whenever confronted by their lies & hypocrisy).
Again, I still believe what she did was certainly actionable, but whether an unfavorable determination against MSNBC survives scrutiny up to and through a verdict, especially from a biased/ leftist lens, is another story.
In summary, it damn sure isn't as clear as you may think &/or want it to be. Hell, if the past few years of politically-inspired lawfare doesn't have you second guessing our legal system, are you really paying attention???
