Quote Quoting jk
View Post
actually, that makes it more likely that it is seen as defamation. It makes it much more likely the victim to be damaged. If I say something, nobody cares. If a big radio personality says something, everybody believes it.

certifiably insane: unless it is true, it is defamatory. In fact, it is defamation per se which does not require a party to prove injury to win. The injury is intrinsic in the statement. Indiana is one of the states that accepts such a statement as defamation per se.

white trash; given the position of the speaker, quite likely to cause damage. Claiming opinion is not a defense here unless the statement was very carefully worded to make it clear it was only the speakers opinion.


an embarrassment to their family: unless the injured party's family will testify they are embarrassed, it is defamatory.



and even larger problem is the fact the statements were made with malice. That is an element only required when the speaker defames a people of public concern yet it is present in these statements.




actually he can't but the problem: for it to be defamation when dealing with public figures; it must be shown the statement was made with malice.
That's sort of my point here. Big radio personalities, at least those I've cared to listen to, don't make it a habit of berating someone (a private citizen) on their programs. They'll browbeat a public figure to a point, of course. But when a radio host takes it upon themselves to deride someone incessantly and then follows those programs up with threatening text messages to that citizen, it seems like there's a line that has been crossed. Rush may be abrasive, but I don't think he would be fool enough to do that. So, all things considered, if it's not both slander and harassment with malice, it certainly seems to be harassment at the very least.