• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Right-wing cable news network files $10 million defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow

 
 
 
Deepak said:
Trausti said:
Wut? You can sue Maddow directly for slander. The main reason you sue the employer is for the bigger pockets.
Click to expand...

This - reporters don't have any sort of immunity that would shield them from a lawsuit.

That said, this would be a slam dunk win for Maddow - they were reporting Russian propaganda about the Syrian chemical attacks, and Rouz is paid by the Russian government. The quote again (all caps from the link):

Maddow said:
“REALLY LITERALLY IS PAID RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.”

“THEIR ON-AIR U.S. POLITICS REPORTER IS PAID BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE PROPAGANDA FOR THAT GOVERNMENT.”
Click to expand...

For OANN to win they'd have to make the case that she meant they were exclusively Russian propaganda, which is a pretty tortured reading of her statement. The weakness of their case is evident in the complaint - where they're stating that OANN is owned by Americans, and that Rouz isn't an employee of Sputnik, but merely a freelancer. But she never stated they were owned by Russians or that Rouz was an employee of Sputnik.
Click to expand...

no, reporters do not have any "special" protections of that sort that I know of... she is an employee doing her job, like everyone else. As long as her employer cannot substantiate that she was operating with malice, complete irresponsibility, or some other drastic departure from her expected work behavior that could be called "gross misconduct" from the DoL, then her "protection" is her status as an "employee". The company is liable for their employee's actions unless they can claim she went totally rouge.
 
Gun Nut said:
Deepak said:
This - reporters don't have any sort of immunity that would shield them from a lawsuit.

That said, this would be a slam dunk win for Maddow - they were reporting Russian propaganda about the Syrian chemical attacks, and Rouz is paid by the Russian government. The quote again (all caps from the link):



For OANN to win they'd have to make the case that she meant they were exclusively Russian propaganda, which is a pretty tortured reading of her statement. The weakness of their case is evident in the complaint - where they're stating that OANN is owned by Americans, and that Rouz isn't an employee of Sputnik, but merely a freelancer. But she never stated they were owned by Russians or that Rouz was an employee of Sputnik.
Click to expand...

no, reporters do not have any "special" protections of that sort that I know of... she is an employee doing her job, like everyone else. As long as her employer cannot substantiate that she was operating with malice, complete irresponsibility, or some other drastic departure from her expected work behavior that could be called "gross misconduct" from the DoL, then her "protection" is her status as an "employee". The company is liable for their employee's actions unless they can claim she went totally rouge.
Click to expand...

As Randi Rhodes, who has been sued in a similar manner a couple times, says "The truth is your defense". Nothing RM said is untrue. OANN will lose.
 
Is there a law which allows to discriminate against government propaganda? I understand RT is available in US for people wishing to watch it. Comcast refusing to distribute some channel because their journalist has links to RT seems kinda illegal to me.
 
Gun Nut said:
Deepak said:
This - reporters don't have any sort of immunity that would shield them from a lawsuit.

That said, this would be a slam dunk win for Maddow - they were reporting Russian propaganda about the Syrian chemical attacks, and Rouz is paid by the Russian government. The quote again (all caps from the link):



For OANN to win they'd have to make the case that she meant they were exclusively Russian propaganda, which is a pretty tortured reading of her statement. The weakness of their case is evident in the complaint - where they're stating that OANN is owned by Americans, and that Rouz isn't an employee of Sputnik, but merely a freelancer. But she never stated they were owned by Russians or that Rouz was an employee of Sputnik.
Click to expand...

no, reporters do not have any "special" protections of that sort that I know of... she is an employee doing her job, like everyone else. As long as her employer cannot substantiate that she was operating with malice, complete irresponsibility, or some other drastic departure from her expected work behavior that could be called "gross misconduct" from the DoL, then her "protection" is her status as an "employee". The company is liable for their employee's actions unless they can claim she went totally rouge.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Unless you have some case law I'm unaware of I will disagree. In instances where a person is acting as an agent of their employer and doing what they are directed to do by an employer, or in the case of state employees being afforded immunity, you are incorrect. I've never heard of a reporter being immune from a defamation lawsuit as an agent of their employer when they make a statement like Maddow did.

She's right, and she will win the case - by my estimation, but your legal interpretation is not correct.

And Maddow doesn't wear a lot of makeup, so I doubt she went rouge ;)
 
barbos said:
Is there a law which allows to discriminate against government propaganda? I understand RT is available in US for people wishing to watch it. Comcast refusing to distribute some channel because their journalist has links to RT seems kinda illegal to me.
Click to expand...

Comcast is a private company. They have no obligation to offer every channel that's out there.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
barbos said:
Is there a law which allows to discriminate against government propaganda? I understand RT is available in US for people wishing to watch it. Comcast refusing to distribute some channel because their journalist has links to RT seems kinda illegal to me.
Click to expand...

Comcast is a private company. They have no obligation to offer every channel that's out there.
Click to expand...
Comcast likely either doesn't feel the channel has enough value to either pay OANN to broadcast it or that OANN isn't willing to dish out enough money to carriage. This isn't some over the air television station. Jebus! We already have Newsmax and The Blaze available, which are more bitterly partisan than Fox News. Just how many right-wing to far right-wing "news" channels are necessary?
 
Loren Pechtel said:
barbos said:
Is there a law which allows to discriminate against government propaganda? I understand RT is available in US for people wishing to watch it. Comcast refusing to distribute some channel because their journalist has links to RT seems kinda illegal to me.
Click to expand...

Comcast is a private company. They have no obligation to offer every channel that's out there.
Click to expand...
Maddow could have said that too and that would have been fine but she chose to go with her hobby horse of "Russians are coming!"
 
barbos said:
PyramidHead said:
The Maddow Effect in action

View attachment 23676
Click to expand...
Considering that russian government is publicly funded as well. Maddow has no argument.
I think Maddow&Co are stupid in their attempts to ban RT, they should welcome RT and demand MSNBC-Russia being broadcasted in Russia in Russian.
Click to expand...

Your confusion between something that is "publicly funded" and "government controlled" is noted. One involves where money comes from to support it, and the other comes from who has final say over the content. One has no resemblance of the other.
 
Gun Nut said:
barbos said:
PyramidHead said:
The Maddow Effect in action

View attachment 23676
Click to expand...
Considering that russian government is publicly funded as well. Maddow has no argument.
I think Maddow&Co are stupid in their attempts to ban RT, they should welcome RT and demand MSNBC-Russia being broadcasted in Russia in Russian.
Click to expand...

Your confusion between something that is "publicly funded" and "government controlled" is noted. One involves where money comes from to support it, and the other comes from who has final say over the content. One has no resemblance of the other.
Click to expand...
It said "government funded", so confusion is yours.
 
The relationship between state and corporate media is so widespread and pernicious in almost every major world power that splitting hairs over "public" or "government" funding is pointless.
 
PyramidHead said:
The relationship between state and corporate media is so widespread and pernicious in almost every major world power that splitting hairs over "public" or "government" funding is pointless.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it's you doing it it's patriotism, if it's other guy then nationalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Jimmy Higgins said:
This is getting out of control. Fox News is no longer extreme enough. Moore-Coulter dealt with the political false equivalency... and now Fox News is under the saber of the Trump supporter... so now that OANN is just as partisan as MSNBC, when Fox News was always much more partisan than MSNBC and OANN isn't even a news channel as much a far right-wiing circle jerk.

What do these people need, "Dead Liberal News"? Stay tuned to our following piece on how to make bombs to kill liberals who want to erase our borders.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have moved past Moore-Coulter. We are on the way to Moore-Hitler.
 
Another loser lawsuit by a phony free-speechist right winger. These snowflakes can't handle criticism and so whine to courts to make the world a safe space for them, but end up wasting their (grifted) money getting foisted on free speech, god bless america.

There's been a string of these. Covington kids (dumbass parents), Devin Nunes, Laura Loomer, Gavin McInnes, Joe Arpaio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom