The Hill raises the issue of whether Rand et al. should sue for libel

[CheezItsRule]

Rand needs to come to Louisvlle and Lexington and defend himslef. Sorry, but that is a fact. He has to be competivie wil ConMan in these urban areas (as much as I hate to admit it).

Does he stand a chance, tho?

 

[sailingaway]

It is mixed. But I am from Louisville ,which is traditionally pretty liberal. Rand needs to come to Louisvlle and Lexington and defend himslef. Sorry, but that is a fact. He has to be competivie wil ConMan in these urban areas (as much as I hate to admit it).

Would Ron Paul be able to help him there? With progressives? I don't know the dynamics at all, and from what I'm reading in the so called 'progressive' blogs in KY, they sound like 'liberals' trying on a progressive name for fashion. But Rand had a really high appeal to independents in December which was eroded in the attack stage of the primary. I'm thinking in December all people knew was that he was Ron's son. Unfortunately, if he is taking advice from McConnell and Rove, they will tell him to run from his strengths, not towards them.

 

[Bman]

It is mixed. But I am from Louisville ,which is traditionally pretty liberal. Rand needs to come to Louisvlle and Lexington and defend himslef. Sorry, but that is a fact. He has to be competivie wil ConMan in these urban areas (as much as I hate to admit it).

I doubt it. But if he needs to defend himself in those areas before November I'm sure he'll at some point make the trip.

I really wouldn't expect too much more on this subject. If someone still feels that they have questions, they certainly aren't looking to hear any answers.

 

[sailingaway]

If someone still feels that they have questions, they certainly aren't looking to hear any answers.

Well, I have to agree that is true. Those spitting 'racism' could easily find the truth, if they aren't already fully clear on that, and just lying.

 

[angelatc]

What really bothers me is that people still talk about Letterman's joke as if he was referring to Willow (14, now 16) and not Bristol (18, now 20), especially since Bristol was the one that HAD a child.

Letterman was referring to Willow, as she was the daughter that was at the park that day.

 

[angelatc]

It is mixed. But I am from Louisville ,which is traditionally pretty liberal. Rand needs to come to Louisvlle and Lexington and defend himslef. Sorry, but that is a fact. He has to be competivie wil ConMan in these urban areas (as much as I hate to admit it).

It's the economy.

 

[Xenophage]

I'm a Ron Paul libertarian and I believe in libel. I also believe in intellectual property. Not all of us are Rothbardian anarchists. Some of us are Randian minarchists.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, libertarian view navel-gazing, radical or mainstream aside, I would comment that I don't think the campaign would pursue any legal action, as it would just further the distraction from the real issues facing the nation.

^
This. Besides if the campaign sued for libel it would lose. Before someone stones me, hear me out. The bar for libel for public figures is much higher than for private figures. That's because we want to be able to keep politicians and other public figures in check and they have a much bigger platform to get out their side of the story.

The standard for public figures is the "actual malice" standard. You have know what you are saying is false. If we applied the standard some of us wish was applied to other politicians to ourselves many of us would be guilty of libel. How many times have people here say "Obama is a socialist"? Does anybody have proof of that? Has anyone seen a "socialist party membership roster" and seen Obama's name on it? Or we just look at the positions he has taken and conclude "That looks like socialism to me, so it must be socialism"? By the same token someone could look at perceived opposition to the civil rights act and conclude "That looks racist to me, so maybe Rand is racist". Look at all of the people here who defended Glen Beck when he said Obama is racist or Van Jones is racist. I've seen no proof that either of them are racist. But I don't think either would win a law suit against Glen Beck for libel.

Now you could look at the actual things Rand said and how he's been misquoted in the media and claim libel. But many of his own supporters keep misquoting him too! Look at all the threads that repeat the falsehood "Rand said he's not as principled as his father". But Rand NEVER said that! Wolf Blitzer asked Rand if he was as PRINCIPLED OF A LIBERTARIAN a s his father and Rand said SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY NO! So if people who actually support Ron and Rand can misquote Rand in a way that makes him look bad, why do we think the MSM won't misquote him? Should Rand sue various members of RPF for libel?

And here's the most important thing. It's time for Rand supporters to go back and watch the various videos on this subject and make sure that WE quote him right! And it's time to quit defending positions that he hasn't taken in the name of "defending Rand Paul". Yes, everybody is grown and can do what they want, but realize that you may be "muddying the waters".

 

[sailingaway]

^
This. Besides if the campaign sued for libel it would lose. Before someone stones me, hear me out. The bar for libel for public figures is much higher than for private figures. That's because we want to be able to keep politicians and other public figures in check and they have a much bigger platform to get out their side of the story.

The standard for public figures is the "actual malice" standard. You have know what you are saying is false. If we applied the standard some of us wish was applied to other politicians to ourselves many of us would be guilty of libel. How many times have people here say "Obama is a socialist"? Does anybody have proof of that? Has anyone seen a "socialist party membership roster" and seen Obama's name on it? Or we just look at the positions he has taken and conclude "That looks like socialism to me, so it must be socialism"? By the same token someone could look at perceived opposition to the civil rights act and conclude "That looks racist to me, so maybe Rand is racist". Look at all of the people here who defended Glen Beck when he said Obama is racist or Van Jones is racist. I've seen no proof that either of them are racist. But I don't think either would win a law suit against Glen Beck for libel.

Now you could look at the actual things Rand said and how he's been misquoted in the media and claim libel. But many of his own supporters keep misquoting him too! Look at all the threads that repeat the falsehood "Rand said he's not as principled as his father". But Rand NEVER said that! Wolf Blitzer asked Rand if he was as PRINCIPLED OF A LIBERTARIAN a s his father and Rand said SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY NO! So if people who actually support Ron and Rand can misquote Rand in a way that makes him look bad, why do we think the MSM won't misquote him? Should Rand sue various members of RPF for libel?

And here's the most important thing. It's time for Rand supporters to go back and watch the various videos on this subject and make sure that WE quote him right! And it's time to quit defending positions that he hasn't taken in the name of "defending Rand Paul". Yes, everybody is grown and can do what they want, but realize that you may be "muddying the waters".

The NY Times ran a piece misquoting Rand, saying that he said restaurants SHOULD be able to discriminate. On the same web page it attached the full Maddow video showing this to be a lie. I know the Chicago Tribune has printed a grudging retraction. Has the NY Times? Because what I vaguely remember from law school is that the malice standard goes hand in hand with a retraction, once you learn the truth. RAnd could link to all the retractions on his web site, at minimum.

YouTube - Rachel Maddow- NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong

 

[jsu718]

Letterman was referring to Willow, as she was the daughter that was at the park that day.

So you are disagreeing with Letterman himself as to which daughter he was referring to? This is basically the same as claiming that Rand is a racist. When someone says specifically that they mean one thing it isn't usually a good idea to assume they mean something different.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'm impressed with the Maddow host pointing that out.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm impressed with the Maddow host pointing that out.

Maybe they don't want to get sued.

 

[jmdrake]

The NY Times ran a piece misquoting Rand, saying that he said restaurants SHOULD be able to discriminate. On the same web page it attached the full Maddow video showing this to be a lie. I know the Chicago Tribune has printed a grudging retraction. Has the NY Times? Because what I vaguely remember from law school is that the malice standard goes hand in hand with a retraction, once you learn the truth. RAnd could link to all the retractions on his web site, at minimum.

YouTube - Rachel Maddow- NY Times get Rand Paul quote wrong

Good points. Your first amendment class may have gone more in depth than mine on that issue. (Or maybe I was zoning out. ) Rand should demand a retraction. And we all should write letters to the editor demanding one.

Also thanks for posting the MSNBC clip. It's good to see the truth coming out from the other side. People can't say MSNBC was just saying this to "help Rand".

 

[jct74]

I'm impressed with the Maddow host pointing that out.

I'd be impressed if they acknowledged it wasn't just the New York Times that got it wrong, apologized to Rand, corrected the transcript, and announced actions have been taken to make sure that doesn't happens again, instead of just absolving themselves of any guilt by saying the transcript is "technically correct" (which its not). I thought it was a sleazy attempt to cover their ass and shift blame.

 

[sailingaway]

Also thanks for posting the MSNBC clip. It's good to see the truth coming out from the other side. People can't say MSNBC was just saying this to "help Rand".

My impression was that they were covering their own ass, since they had the first misstatement, and that this was their retraction (clarification).

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'd be impressed if they acknowledged it wasn't just the New York Times that got it wrong, apologized to Rand, corrected the transcript, and announced actions have been taken to make sure that doesn't happens again, instead of just absolving themselves of any guilt by saying the transcript is "technically correct" (which its not). I thought it was a sleazy attempt to cover their ass and shift blame.

I disagree. The transcript was technically correct. Well, close it to "yes" vs "yeah". But he did utter the word, and on a transcript that could be taken out of context. Perhaps they're just doing it to cover their own ass, but there were far less public ways they could have covered their ass.