Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

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

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,457
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepak View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Wut? You can sue Maddow directly for slander. The main reason you sue the employer is for the bigger pockets.
    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):

    Quote Originally Posted by Maddow
    “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.”
    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.
    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.

  2. Top | #22
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    14,765
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    17,799
    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepak View Post

    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.
    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.
    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.
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,725
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,772
    Rep Power
    61
    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.

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,725
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,772
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Nothing RM said is untrue. OANN will lose.
    Well, Alfa Bank conspiracy was untrue

  5. Top | #25
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    14,765
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    17,799
    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Nothing RM said is untrue. OANN will lose.
    Well, Alfa Bank conspiracy was untrue
    Opinions are like assholes...
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,725
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,772
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Nothing RM said is untrue. OANN will lose.
    Well, Alfa Bank conspiracy was untrue
    Opinions are like assholes...
    Well, her opinion was untrue.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,494
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,609
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    It would probably help if you read the article.
    Probably. But I don't care enough to be quite honest.
    Sure, why bother to actual know what you are talking about.
    It never stopped you.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,219
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,608
    Rep Power
    57
    The Maddow Effect in action


  9. Top | #29
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    14,928
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    56,871
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Sure, why bother to actual know what you are talking about.
    It never stopped you.
    Nor you, as your post demonstrates.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member Deepak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,955
    Archived
    861
    Total Posts
    2,816
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepak View Post

    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.
    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.
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •