Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Generic Other

(28,979 posts)
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:18 PM Feb 2012

Gingrich demands TV stations drop attack ad

Newt Gingrich is asking television stations in his home state of Georgia not to air an ad by a pro-Romney PAC, Restore Our Future.

An attorney representing the former House Speaker, according to Gingrich's website, sent letters to Georgia-based television stations saying the ad is "NOT TRUE" (Gingrich's emphasis, not ours).

Attorney Patrick Millsaps wrote that the ad is "defamatory" and could expose the television station to "civil liability" if the station airs it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380693-503544/gingrich-demands-tv-stations-drop-attack-ad/


The problem is if they quit lying in their ads, they will be making silent movies!
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gingrich demands TV stations drop attack ad (Original Post) Generic Other Feb 2012 OP
Hey, Newti-pie, since when Kookaburra Feb 2012 #1
I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreud watching Newt flail around. Kurmudgeon Feb 2012 #2
Freedom of Speech, Nootie treestar Feb 2012 #3
5 year old demands candy. russspeakeasy Feb 2012 #4
Unless the misrepresentation is inherently malicious, it's protected by the First Amendment. no_hypocrisy Feb 2012 #5
puffy little whiney boy says what? alphafemale Feb 2012 #6

Kookaburra

(2,649 posts)
1. Hey, Newti-pie, since when
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:21 PM
Feb 2012

does truth factor into anything you do or say?

I'm just sayin' -- you reap what you sow.

 

Kurmudgeon

(1,751 posts)
2. I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreud watching Newt flail around.
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:24 PM
Feb 2012

Oh how the high and mighty have fallen. I haven't forgotten him during the Clinton years.

no_hypocrisy

(46,116 posts)
5. Unless the misrepresentation is inherently malicious, it's protected by the First Amendment.
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:39 PM
Feb 2012

“(D)efamation law does not require that combatants for public office act like war-time neutrals, treating everyone evenhandedly and always taking the high road,” the court wrote. “Quite the contrary. Provided that they do not act with actual malice, they can badmouth their opponents, hammering them with unfair and one-sided attacks — remember, speaking out on political issues, especially criticizing public officials and hopefuls for public office, is a core freedom protected by the First Amendment … . And absent actual malice, more speech, not damages, is the right strike-back against superheated or false rhetoric.”

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/1st-circuit-dismisses-candidates-defamation-suit

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gingrich demands TV stati...