Skip to main content

View Diary: Desperate CA Station Claims StopRush is a Criminal Operation (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this is just a tactic (20+ / 0-)

    to put your group on the defensive.

    Don't let them force your eyes off the ball.

    Keep on keepin' on.

    The fact that they feel the need to do this, is evidence that we are WINNING.

    Don't change a thing.

    I'm not an athiest. How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? That's way too convoluted for me. - A. Whitney Brown

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 05:27:41 AM PDT

    •  Exactly but is this just a talking point (12+ / 0-)

      or a hint of future legal strategy? Rush doesn't have to win he just needs to get the group in court and bury them in legal bills. Or he needs this case sent to a GOP judge willing to bend the law the Roberts Supreme Court seems very willing to bend the law to help the GOP win elections.
           If Rush goes off the air the GOP crazy base will be less motivated.
          Both scenarios are unlikely I don't think Stop Rush can be sued and getting even a GOP judge to rule for Rush first implies the judge won't dismiss the case.
           But at the very least Rush can have the entire GOP media try and smear Stop Rush with these lies.
          This tactic the GOP Media I think will find is like using gas to put out a fire.

      •  i agree (7+ / 0-)
        This tactic the GOP Media I think will find is like using gas to put out a fire.
        RW radio and limbaugh have been successful because they've been ignored by the victims of the lies and distortions and propaganda. and the boycott hasn't been getting the media attention it deserves. attacking the boycott will grow it and increase the reaction to limbaugh and talk radio in general.

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 06:31:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't matter if they can get (6+ / 0-)

        a judge to rule in their favor, all they have to do is keep the people involved in StopRush in court for as long as possible to bankrupt them.  Remember, SCO was able to keep IBM in court for 10 years without introducing a single shred of evidence!  If the people involved with StopRush are sued individually can they all afford those kind of delaying tactics?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 06:50:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, but it takes pretty deep pockets to keep... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Throw The Bums Out, elwior

          the legal pressure on.  SCO Group effectively had Microsoft as a sugar daddy and could thereby afford to to tilt at windmills in court.  There's not nearly that much money in the entire radio industry, certainly not at LarDog Communications (owner of KROP), whoever they are.

          •  How about the Koch brothers? n/t (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mconvente, ahumbleopinion, salmo, elwior

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 08:08:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            While I am sure everybody here knows that actually pursuing a lawsuit is often quite expensive, if the object is to be able to say that a lawsuit is in progress, and to harass defendants, that can be done quite inexpensively.  We have a couple of nuisance cranks around here that make this sort of thing a habit for essentially pocket change.  They never win - but winning is not the object.  Their targets are significantly inconvenienced, and answering all those complaints, producing documents, etc. is quite expensive.  So, it is a form of asymmetrical bullying by the aging jerks who do that, and by Rush (and his cohorts) too.  

        •  Legally, such a case would have no shot, right? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          salmo, elwior, delver rootnose

          So would it really take that much in legal resources to get the case thrown out? It's not like they'd need a lawyer to do a whole lot, would they?

          And wouldn't a case like this be a very cut and dry violation of California's anti-SLAPP laws?

          Not a lawyer, so just curious.

        •  but that is what .... (0+ / 0-)

          ....SLAPP laws are for.

          We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

          by delver rootnose on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:15:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  to sue stoprush you need standing. (4+ / 0-)

        you also need jurisdiction.

        If KROP were to sue, the best they can come up with offhand is "Tortious interference with business relations",  

        they can't sue on behalf of the advertisers, they need to sue on behalf of themselves.  I don't think the CAN-SPAM
        act gives them standing to litigate for their clients.

        so if they sue on behalf of themselves, they need to show
        what's the problem.  So they have to say "Your actions are
        harming are business and are outside the bounds of civil conduct".

        The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
        Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
        Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
        Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
        The contractual relationship is breached.
        but typically the standard is "hen false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual's reputation in order to drive business away."

        In this case, it's telling advertisers the truth.

        especially if the message is limited to "Your vendor is hateful, mean-spirited and costing you business. Our business".

        In that case the message is true, simple and protected speech.

        Also California has a SLAPP act, 

      •  The Roberts Court... (0+ / 0-)

        ...first, simply isn't.

        Second, it's very, very hostile to anything it perceives as a threat to the First Amendment.

        Don't base your opinions on a tiny handful of cases that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site