Limbaugh Sues The Cult

I’ve long thought that the tactics of pressure groups have exceeded the bounds of legality. The law is clear about interfering with the business dealings of others for the purpose of causing one of more parties harm. It is one thing for me to claim my soap will make your clothes cleaner than the other soap. It is quite another to disrupt the relationship between the other soap and its vendors in order to harm the business of the competitor. That’s what liberal pressure groups are doing when they start harassing advertisers in order to get them to stop doing business with a TV or radio show.

I made this point in a post about Limbaugh a while back. I was immediately visited by a bunch of spam from lunatics claiming to be concerned about my opinion on Limbaugh. These people are crazy and they go beyond stating their opinions into the realm of tortious interference, in my opinion. Anyway, it looks like Limbaugh is planning to sue the Democrats for defamation.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh has threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for defamation, The Daily Caller has learned.

Limbaugh retained the services of lawyer Patty Glaser and demanded that the DCCC “preserve all records in anticipation of a lawsuit for defamation and interference” after the Democratic Party group led a campaign against Limbaugh based on out-of-context statements the host made about sexual assault. Limbaugh’s legal team delivered a letter to DCCC representatives Monday informing them of the legal threat. Limbaugh has also demanded a public retraction and apology.

The Limbaugh team is currently proceeding from the standpoint of litigating and has not yet made a decision as to whether the DCCC could make any concessions at this point to prevent the lawsuit.

The DCCC “has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program” according to the GlaserWeil law firm’s letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. “Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes.’”

“Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape” the DCCC stated in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh mocked Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines.

Limbaugh’s team said that the DCCC’s campaign against Limbaugh provides grounds for a defamation case, based on legal precedent.

“The DCCC may believe it to be immune from liability by quoting words, taken out of context. This is untrue,” Glaser said. “There is significant on point precedent in the 9th Circuit for holding an organization responsible for falsifying meaning through selective quoting. In Price v. Stossel, the court held that, if a party accurately quotes ‘a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer’s understanding of the speaker’s words,’ that constitutes defamation.”
This is long overdue. I think you give a lot of room for political combatants to whack one another around, even if it veers into outright lying. In politics, one man’s lie is another man’s holy truth. Defamation is another matter. The Left often just attacks bogeymen gratuitously. It is way to shift the focus from them onto some other. When that bogeyman is a real person and they are saying untrue things about him, then they have crossed a line.
Let’s hope the court awards Limbaugh a trillion dollars.

6 thoughts on “Limbaugh Sues The Cult

  1. Bill, you and I read the post the same way. It starts out discussing one issue and then switches to finish up on an entirely separate issue. Doubtless that zig-zag accounts for how the zman got his screen name.

  2. “The law is clear about interfering with the business dealings of others for the purpose of causing one of more parties harm.”

    I’m fairly certain you’re wrong about that. The 1st Amendment generally guarantees us the right to say what we want about another person, as long as it isn’t false. If I decide to petition a company to stop doing business with someone, you can be 1,000% certain that this is protected speech.

    If, on the other hand, your opinion is correct, then no one could ever say anything negative about a person or a company, ever.

    I understand where you’re coming from, it’s just obvious to me you’re wrong.

    Also, note that Limbaugh is suing for defamation, not for tortuous interference or anything similar.

  3. The left feels confident that the judicial and media systems have their backs, and they do. But overconfidence will lead to recklessness, and Limbaugh is not the type to bring a lawsuit he cannot win. The discovery process alone is going to create hell for Democrats. This will actually be very interesting.

    • It is a no lose for Limbaugh. It is free publicity that his audience can support. It comes as the Cult is on its heals. Inside the DNC they are about to engage in a night of many knives. Discovery would be a very unpleasant process.

  4. Then again, there was that petition signed off by
    seated members of the legislature….
    Some of us are better than others at recognizing patterns.
    Perhaps Mr. Obama should consult with Mr. Sharpton on the “optics” on this?

Comments are closed.