Didn't Bill O'Reilly engage in slander or libel when he compared Daily Kos members to Nazi's and KKK members?
See here for an example of what he said.
Because this is hate of the worst order. It's like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party. There's no difference here. People should die. Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Network, 16 July 2007.
I think when it's on TV its slander, and if it's in print, it's libel, but I could be confused about that. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read my AP Style Manual and Libel Handbook so I do have a passing acquaintance with how libel law works.
This seems like a pretty clear cut case of libel/slander to me. One can not apply labels like "Nazi" or "KKK" to Daily Kos as a whole in any responsible way.
It's incredibly irresponsible for a national cable talk show host to engage in such behavior.
Shouldn't Daily Kos be suing Bill O'Reilly?
The only absolute defense against libel/slander is the truth: there is not a snow ball's chance in hell O'Reilly has that on his side. Accusations of parity with Nazis or KKK certainly seem defamatory.
What do you think?
My Dad watches FOX News, and knows I read and post to Daily Kos. O'Reilly really doesn't have the right to be telling my Dad that me, and the rest of us, are mass murderers. Nor does FOX news have the right to give him a bully pulpit, it would seem to me.
In principle, I think I'd rather tend to err on the side of protecting free speech, and ignoring such things. But O'Reilly really seems to have crossed the line, and violated civil law.
Of course, even if what O'Reilly said is actionable in civil court, there is the very legitimate question of whether or not such civil action is feasible, or strategically useful.