Well this will be interesting….  I do think that Keith’s employment will be safe given who is employer is and all the outrageous false claims he has made over the years.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkx8Xe7yiXY 

He is looking for all the financial help he can get to pay off the individuals who are suing him.

Are damages limited if no one watched the false allegations?

It’s about time someone started pushing back on these liars.

You are right, Jack. Most of us have had enough and are fed up with the lies and misrepresentations.

So the little boy who still lives with his parents thinks Olbermann and Current slandered his reputation.  What reputation?  Speaking of lies and falsely editing film so it comes out the way you wanted it to come out, and not what was actually said or done.  I think he may have a case with Olbermann calling him a felon, but he was accused and found guilty of entering a Federal building under false pretense and maybe of trying to tap the phone line.  The accusation of rape was taken to court with the verdict with held because the judge didn’t feel there was enough evidence.  The judge in the case did recommend that the women accusing him of rape take her case to civil court.  The felony charge could easily be seen as a mistake on Olbermann part because of O’Keefe’s entering a Federal building, and he may have been originally charge with a felony.  If he wins anything this will be the one.  I don’t see the jury giving him much sympathy, though,  because he is a public figure.  Either way he won’t get much money out of this since everyone knows his past which will surely be repeated by Olbermann’s attorneys.  Besides, he is still trying to fight a case where he was also charged with slandering by Shirely Jones.

So the little boy who still lives with his parents thinks Olbermann and Current slandered his reputation.  What reputation?  Speaking of lies and falsely editing film so it comes out the way you wanted it to come out, and not what was actually said or done.  I think he may have a case with Olbermann calling him a felon, but he was accused and found guilty of entering a Federal building under false pretense and maybe of trying to tap the phone line.  The accusation of rape was taken to court with the verdict with held because the judge didn’t feel there was enough evidence.  The judge in the case did recommend that the women accusing him of rape take her case to civil court.  The felony charge could easily be seen as a mistake on Olbermann part because of O’Keefe’s enering a Federal building, and he may have been originally charge with a felony.  If he wins anything this will be the one.  I don’t see the jury giving him much sympathy, though,  because he is a public figure.  Either way he won’t get much money out of this since everyone knows his past which will surely be repeated by Olbermann’s attorneys.  Besides, he is still trying to fight a case where he was also charged with slandering by Shirely Jones.

Slander is okay as long as you really don’t like somebody.

Every one of this idiots employers would have already been sued out of existance if the same yardstick were applied to them.

No, he did not say slander was “okay”. He said the Love Boat captain’s reputation makes it very difficult to prove he has suffered any damages. Additionally, the original criminal Information which was filed, were felony charges which were later reduced to entering a federal building under false pretenses. At a minimum, this conviction will be admissible in court under Federal Rule of Evidence 609.

Boy, this story got relegated to the sidebar rather quickly.

He’s got a rather solid court case, regardless.  Calling someone a convicted felon and rapist when you likely knew the claim to be false is reckless.   The best defense is truly that no one heard it.  While you can win the lawsuit, how can you claim any damage?  I think the real goal is to get a hold of emails for publication.   The discovery might be very interesting.  

Playing in traffic is really stupid even if you are a wingnut employed to fluff Tucker Carlson.

 I don’t suppose you can ever rise above a “maybe trying to tap a phone line” conviction.

 Didn’t it?

You missed my point, I never said it was OK to slander someone you don’t like.

His original charge was a felony offense, but his lawyers were able to reduce the charges.  Look it up.

“…he was accused and found guilty of entering a Federal building under false pretense and maybe of trying to tap the phone line.”

You speeka de English?

However, O’Keefe is a public figure & “likely knowing the claim to be false” isn’t the standard.  O’Keefe has to prove that the Current boys did, in fact, know the statement to be false or that they recklessly disregarded the truth. 

From here on out, Keith & Dave? It’s “accused felon James O’Keefe” & “alleged or accused rapist James O’Keefe.”

 Well, that would be a lie too, and they’d know it. That’s where the malice comes in.

It’s not defamation if it’s true.

You implied it. “So the little boy who still lives with his parents thinks Olbermann and Current slandered his reputation.  What reputation?” Your own words.

Questions for American conservative males that admire this twit:

1. Why can’t O’Keefe buy a suit that fits him and his pencil neck? Why does he wear hideous suit jackets that look like he got them from a bargain basement store AND bought one five sizes too big. There is a gap under that jacket of about three inches between where his shoulder ends and where the jacket shoulder pad ends. *shudder*

2. Why do all conservative males insist on the hideous far left parting teamed with hair gel? Why can’t you just have normal hair? Is this so people recognize you as a conservative and know to avoid you?

Just a final thought. Why does this idiot think hatred of him must be ‘misguided’?

If you need 78 qualifiers to make it true, you sound like an idiot by the time you get through with them. Which I’m sure Current viewers won’t notice at all.

Thing is, the hasn’t been any rape accusation. So, that’d still be a lie. And you’re cool with that, right?

if its this kinda party, we should all sue FOX! 

He has character to defame?

Very Well said, and thanks for your knowledge on this foul human being. The slander suit Keith Olbermann will mostly likely be thrown out, his reputation is already in the toilet. He has shown himself as a lair, and what about his many false reporting? Really I hope he land in jail.

This sounded like a headline right out of the Onion.

What’s next? Samsung sues Apple for copying its products?

Great questions, Tan.  Thoughtful, penetrating, civil, and reasoned.  You are a credit to your sex, nation, hemisphere, and whatever institution of higher learning was gracious enough to accept you.  I can see you’ll do very well in your doctoral dissertation; at least if Australian universities are anything like what American ones have become.

racist

 A few points…

The slander/libel laws are ment to protect private citizens.  They are very costly and tough to prove when the victim is in the public square.  Conventional wisdom states, don’t put yourself out there if you can’t take the heat.  It is also tough to prove in that the victim has to prove that they intentionally lied.  Not be mistaken, hyperbolic, or just plain wrong.  It is up to the victim to prove that the party intentionally lied for the purpose of damaging said victim. It will be tough to prove, thats why these things get settled out.

Another reason that these cases are not brought up is that they bring into question the victims character and it is fair game for the defense to use.  This isn’t a criminal case, it is civil and there are two separate legal ideals here.  That means any dirty laundry that O’Keefe has is now able to be used as a defense.  The ACORN vids, NPR, the love boat incident, hell even him calling someone stupid in grade school can be used.  Most people, especially in the public square, do not want MORE stuff to get out.  Why do you think it took a murdered girl to expose the News of The World hacking scandal?

My main question is who is paying for this?  O’Keefe has gone on record that his group has no money and has racked up thousands in debt.  So much so that on his little office visit, he pleaded out with a public defender. So with what I said before, something tells me this is little more than a publicity stunt.  Also away to get more donations.

Who is his attorney, Legal Zoom? Now that Andrew(RIP) his mentor is no longer with us he has to find some means of keeping his name relevant.

 You’re right Pablo – O’Keefe and the rest of these creeps need to start answering for their actions.

You people on this blog are all brainwashed leftist by either your education mentors or Obamanites or none of you have an ounce of common sense as to what those in the WH have in mind for this glorious free country! Why don”t you all try to wake up a bit and check things out before you start calling names and making things up!

Going to be hard to prove would really like to be on that jury to see all name calling from James & Keith be WWE promo in court room. I see this case being throwen out or being settled.

Why do you think he was really going into the building, Pablow?  Was he looking for an Illegal alien?  Tool.

Well put, ditto head.

 Why don’t you tell us what the “WH have in mind for this glorious free country!”  I swear some people will believe anything!!!!!!

I suspect that nearly everything you believe the “WH” has done is either imaginary or what we in the real world call the ‘opposite of reality’.

I doubt I’ll be back, but Mediate apparently uses a common login because it recognizes me so I suppose I’ll get any replies.  I’d love to hear what you think the WH has done.  Seriously.  The beliefs of todays conservatives fascinate me.

I’m bored and avoiding house work so I’ll start you off with a quiz.  Tell me if you believe any of the following are true  (hint, they all are)

*  President Obama’s stimulus package included the largest middle class tax break in history.
*  corollary.. Reagan raised taxes for 7 of 8 years as President, a total of 11 times.
*  The much hated Individual Mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act was originally a Republican idea, supported by the Heritage Institute (with minor caveats).
*  Two of the four remaining Republican Presidential candidates spoke publicly in favor of a Federal Individual Mandate for health insurance.  Dozens of Republican Senators and Congressmen have introduced or co-sponsored legislation with an Individual Mandate prior to Obama taking office.
*  Registration fraud is not voter fraud.  Registration fraud is incredibly rare and in-person voter fraud is almost nonexistent.  You are statistically more likely to have been stuck by lightening than to have committed voter fraud.  In the 2004 election, voter fraud was estimated at 0.0002%, or one in every 500,000 votes.
*  ACORN was never found guilty of Voter or Registration fraud.  
*  ACORN turned in fraudulent voter Registration forms.  They, like all registrars, are not allowed to discard registration cards they believe to be fraudulent nor are they required by law to identify suspect fraudulent forms before submitting them.  It is against the law in every state to withhold suspect registration forms, even if you believe them to be fraudulent.  It is the duty of the States to screen registrations.
*  ACORN went above and beyond their legal obligations by pre-identifying suspect registrations.
*  Federal deficits are decreasing.
*  The latest CBO projection of the cost of the Affordable Care Act indicate, overall, projected cost is less than initially estimated (by ~ $50 Billion over 10 years).
*  The stimulus program saved or created millions of jobs (according to at least 7 major non-partisan reviews I’m aware of, CBO and Moody’s come immediately to mind)
*  Defense spending has increased under Obama.
*  Obama hasn’t apologized for the US to other nations, nor is he the first President to bow (honor) a foreign leader.
*  The AHCA is unpopular according to public polling.  This seems to be a perception issue since the individual components (excluding IM) are broadly popular.
*  Obama has not raised taxes on corporations
*  Obama has not banned new off-shore drilling leases.
*  US Gasoline consumption is down and US oil production is up.  Overall, foreign oil imports are down under Obama.
*  New unemployment claims this past month the lowest since before Obama took office.  Consumer confidence and spending up, again, last month
* Unemployment peaked in October 2009 and has trended down ever since (occasional increased, clear trend down).  The last Bush administration budget ran until the end of September 2009.  The beginning of the US Fiscal year (when new budgets take affect) is October 1.   http://tinyurl.com/7tku9nk

that’s all I got off the top of my head, with a couple checks on my numbers here and there.  I’m bored.
So.. how’d you score?

Oh, ok.. one more for the test..

*  Barack Obama is an American who was criticized because of the length of time he spent at a particular Christian church with claims he shared the pastors beliefs, before he was subsequently accused of being a muslim by those same critics.

IANAL.. 
my understanding is…

This appears to be Defamation Per se.   That’s bad for Olberman.  False claims of Deviant Sexual Behavior seem to be the gold-standard for Defamation Per se.   That means, it’s so obvious the statements are damaging, there’s no need to prove damage to reputation.

There is a concept of a “libel-proof” individual.  That is, some people are considered to have such a damaged reputation from prior publication of the defaming statements that they can only hope for nominal awards from subsequent libel or slander.   If someone else said this publicly before Olberman, he can claim O’Keefe is libel-proof because he simply repeated the original defamation that did the real harm.

There is the requirement that the ‘authors’ knew, or should have known the statement was false.  That’s the standard for most people….

Where Olberman would get off….

For public figures the bar is higher.  
The plaintiff much prove Actual Malice or Reckless Disregard.  Reckless Disregard is a higher standard than “should have known”.
I suspect, again IANAL, Olberman can claim no Actual Malice if he retracted the claim later asserting he was mistaken.  To the best of my knowledge, O’Keefe was charged with a Felony and convicted in that incident, though of a reduced charge.  There’s some deniability there.. … “Well, everyone knew he was arrested for A, and that he was convicted.. I was unaware the charges changed in the interim.. it was a mistake a reasonable person could have made”…
 Likewise, public accusations (or charges) of Rape could possibly shield Olberman from claims of Reckless disregard.  Olberman could claim it was a reasonable mistake given the prior public information.  .. a reasonable person might have thought the claims were true.

I’d actually be surprised if O’Keefe wins this.

Now.. did the hispanic guy from O’Keefe’s ACORN “sting” ever sue him?  That’s one O’Keefe would surely loose.  
The employee was recorded without his knowledge (most states call that illegal wire-tapping) and he was publicly portrayed as being willing to engage in human trafficking.  It came to light after O’Keefe published the video that the employee was trying to get details out of O’Keefe to use when he called the authorities after O’Keefe left.  He did, in fact, call the cops after O’Keefe left.
I don’t believe O’Keefe ever retracted those claims, even after it was clear they were untrue. The man also suffered clear damages, aside from the per se nature of claiming someone is a human trafficker..  when he was fired over the video.

Who  cares anyway.