Yikes - ATR Live

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cardus

It is the 1964 Supreme Court decision that sets the federal standard for defamation, be it libel (fixed medium, like print) or slander (spoken).

It established that for someone who is judged to be a "public figure" or "limited public figure" -- the status to which Dutrow would be assigned -- to be defamed, there must be "acutal malice" or a reckless disregard for the truth by the potential defamer. The fact that something is true is called an absolute defense against defamation.

It came out of the Alabama court system. A county official sued the New York Times, but the court decided that the New York Times had not violated the standards it set forth.

I did not want to get into an argument with the operator of the board so I let it go but there is no way the radio station could be held liable for a radio interview in which claims like these were made, now maybe allday could but not the radio station, or a television station or a newspaper.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I did not want to get into an argument with the operator of the board so I let it go but there is no way the radio station could be held liable for a radio interview in which claims like these were made, now maybe allday could but not the radio station, or a television station or a newspaper.

steve has said that sirius made it clear that they do not want any lawsuits.
you're suggesting he should just ignore those instructions because you are so confident? maybe you are correct that they wouldn't be held liable, but I believe their goal is to not have to put it to the test. its amazing how much free expert advice steve gets here, about what he should do or say on HIS radio show.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

steve has said that sirius made it clear that they do not want any lawsuits.
you're suggesting he should just ignore those instructions because you are so confident? maybe you are correct that they wouldn't be held liable, but I believe their goal is to not have to put it to the test. its amazing how much free expert advice steve gets here, about what he should do or say on HIS radio show.

Exactly. It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a pretty small radio show on a pretty big network trying not to make waves as per the big network's instructions.

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

steve has said that sirius made it clear that they do not want any lawsuits.
you're suggesting he should just ignore those instructions because you are so confident? maybe you are correct that they wouldn't be held liable, but I believe their goal is to not have to put it to the test. its amazing how much free expert advice steve gets here, about what he should do or say on HIS radio show.

Well said, it was what I was thinking.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I did not want to get into an argument with the operator of the board so I let it go but there is no way the radio station could be held liable for a radio interview in which claims like these were made, now maybe allday could but not the radio station, or a television station or a newspaper.

It's not of question of winning such a confrontation.. It's a question of trying to avoid what is involved in such an entanglement. We do not have the financial resources to engage in legal disputes of this nature, and Sirius isn't interested in a show like ours creating those headaches for them.

Why is this so difficult for anyone to understand? There have been two prior incidents and it's been made clear to me by my associate John Perrotta, and by Sirius, that we can't afford a third.

[Echo Farm]

Hopefully something like this won't hurt the show. I look forward to the 3 hours every afternoon.

I would not renew my Sirius if the show were gone.