Militant broadcaster brands 15-year-old girl a ‘prostitute’ for crying in fear at Oregon town meetin

[Grassy Knoll]

Source: rawstory.com

Conservative broadcaster Pete Santilli accused a 15-year-old Oregon girl who cried at a town meeting of “prostitution” on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Judge Steven Grasty’s granddaughter, Ashlie Presley, choked up at a Burns town meeting while explaining that Ammon Bundy’s armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge had put the community in fear.

“I should not have to be scared in my own hometown,” Presley said. “I know that all of my friends have been scared and have come to me to know what to do.”

While broadcasting from the refuge on Wednesday, Santilli said that Grasty had turned his granddaughter into a “prostitute.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/militant-broadcaster-brands-15-year-old-girl-a-prostitute-for-crying-in-fear-at-oregon-town-meeting/

[SoapBox]

1. WTF?

We have our own ISIS freaks right here...what a low life scum, to say something like this about her.

Scum.

[yuiyoshida]

22. That broadcaster is

a complete asshole. (There! I said it!)

[blackspade]

39. A fucking asshole.

[L. Coyote]

75. When did ranting in video selfies, ranting crap like shoot Hillary in the V, become broadcasting?

I loath that this person would be called a broadcaster on DU.[center]

[center]

"I shouldn't have to be scared in my own hometown," says Burns High School student

[center]That #PSguy is the one who was thrown out of the Harney public meeting for disruption while filming and the broadcast
ended with him crying, alone in the dark out on the sidewalk LIVE online with 19 total viewers including myself.
So, if #PSguy is a broadcaster, so are baby monitors.

[center]

[Warpy]

28. He boasts about being the Howard Stern of alternative journalism

I wish You Tube would cut the bastard off. That would be a really good start.

[SoapBox]

59. And yet YouTube kept shutting down Bernie2016TV.

Gee...so "fair".

[leftynyc]

70. Really?

The guy is a freeking asshole dj and you're comparing him to those who cut the heads off their enemies. Does that really seem logical to you?

[randome]

74. Seeing women as objects to control and scorn is close enough for the analogy to work, IMO.

It's verbal abuse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lizzie Poppet]

77. That jackass needs a mouth full of fist.

I'm not one to advocate violence...but that POS deserves to be shitting teeth for a week.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Well that is not going to go over without some come back.

Understand that Judge is kinda the aw shucks type and highly thought of in Burns. Never piss off a Judge or his family.

[branford]

3. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, Santilli and his ilk are despicable.

Last edited Wed Jan 13, 2016, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

However, no matter how vile, his comments are not illegal, and law enforcement should not be goaded into doing anything stupid in response. That's exactly what the militia wants.

I have no desire to see anyone killed or injured, law enforcement, militia, or bystander, nor do I want these yahoos to become martyrs and encourage others of their kind, particularly when a little patience can likely peacefully resolve this stupid stand-off.

[padfun]

5. Is Libel illegal?

Or is it just a civil case?

[branford]

11. A politically-related opinion concerning someone's virtue, even a child,

no matter how vile, does not constitute libel and would not be actionable in civil court, no less as a criminal matter. No one can reasonably suggest that Santilli believed and was accusing the girl of actually engaging in prostitution as the term is understood in a criminal context.

Santilli is goading, and we should not take the bait.

[elehhhhna]

15. Bullshit

You are a very bad fake lawyer, babe.

[branford]

21. I'm a commercial and civil litigation licensed in NY and NJ,

practicing for 20 years, including work at the NIJ,DOJ and NLRB, and have often discussed my background and experience in different contexts and topics. Besides, the libel question is sufficiently simple that a competent paralegal or first year law student could have provided an accurate and reliable response.

However, please feel free to offer the basis for your legal opinion and explain how what amounts to a political opinion not offered as technical fact is actionable in either criminal or civil court. Legal citations from Oregon would be most welcome.

[passiveporcupine]

43. Well at least he didn't call her a whore.

It doesn't really matter which word he used, as he did not mean it in the sexual sense.

“That judge was prostituting his granddaughter for political purposes,” he opined.

I don't think anyone is advocating violence over this idiot.

That doesn't mean he isn't one sick cookie. He's also not very bright.

[branford]

44. He is a vile and despicable excuse for a human being.

Of that, there is no doubt.

He simply cannot be sued for his opinions.

[passiveporcupine]

49. And most of the posters here are just revealing their opinions too

no matter how some of them may come across. They cannot really do anything, other than vent their anger.

[branford]

51. Very true and understandable.

In fact, I only discussed the defamation issue because another poster specifically inquired of me whether such a lawsuit was possible.

Unfortunately, sometimes people equate a legal defense of an opinion as agreement with that opinion.

[passiveporcupine]

56. I understand

law can be very frustrating.

[KingCharlemagne]

73. The first amendment protects speech with which we disagree , not that with which

we agree. As objectionable as Santili's comments were, they clearly enjoy first amendment protection.

[elehhhhna]

89. Whoa Trigger! I should trust the internetrollish ramblings of a

self professed attorney with an admittedly unstable career history?


Not likely.

[branford]

91. Sigh...

Here's another opinion of an attorney in this thread who agrees the Santilli's comments cannot legally support a cause of action for defamation (and disagrees with some of my other points).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141313622#post81

However, feel free to ignore my background or qualifications, and simply regale us with you legal analysis of how the comments at issue meet all necessary criteria to support a defamation claim.

[elehhhhna]

92. Perhaps you're right. Santilli I'd a pig regardless who should be

shamed and shunned.

And I'd file anyway.

[branford]

95. I, like everyone else, readily acknowledged that Santilli is human excrement.

The relevant point is that even social filth still have rights, their opinions, no matter how vile, are not actionable in court, and if law enforcement or locals in Oregon react violently to such obvious provocation, they will provide Santilli and his ilk with exactly what they want.

The best way to deal with Santilli and those like him is to ignore them or protest and pressure their sponsors and distributors.

Also, filing a meritless case will not hurt Santilli. The case will be promptly dismissed, and given the frivolity and intention, you'll likely end up paying for his court costs and subject to further sanction.

[niyad]

48. just as a matter of curiosity, how do YOU define "libel", or "slander"?

[branford]

50. For reference, here's a good link concerning defamation claims in New York.

The basic defamation tort requirements are fairly universal, although some states do have their occasional idiosyncrasies.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-defamation-law

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

[jeff47]

13. Libel (actually slander in this case) is a civil case. (nt)

[branford]

24. Whether oral or written, Santilli's statements as reported

would not support a lawsuit for defamation.

[jeff47]

32. Making a "political" statement doesn't shield you from defamation.

If the girl was a public figure, then she'd probably lose. But she's not.

Still not an easy case, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

[branford]

34. No, but an opinion is not legally actionable.

If Santilli stated that the 15 year old girl was an actual prostitute and he had evidence of her selling sexual services for money, the girl would no doubt have a case for defamation.

However, accusing someone of prostituting themselves in a political context, as was clearly the case here, is simply offering a statement of opinion, not fact, and thus could not support a cause of action for slander.

[jeff47]

35. No, if he had evidence then she wouldn't have a case

Because if she actually was a prostitute, she can't be defamed by calling her a prostitute.

However, accusing someone of prostituting themselves in a political context, as was clearly the case here

It's only clear that he was in a political context. If she was in a political context/public figure, then he'd be safe. It's not completely clear she would be considered to be in that context.

[branford]

37. The higher standards for public figures have nothing to do with the difficulty

in bringing a defamation action in this case.

My example about the prostitute was assuming Santilli didn't actually have such evidence, as I unsurprisingly don't believe the girl at issue is a prostitute.

Offering a vile opinion of someone, when such statement is clearly only an opinion, is not actionable. Santilli would need to offer a statement of fact about the girl that was untrue, i.e., she actually sold sexual services for money, to be potentially liable for defamation. No one would could reasonably believe that Santilli was making such a suggestion in this context, and any lawyer who relied on such statement alone to file a lawsuit would soon have the case thrown out, and in many jurisdictions and federal court, might face additional costs and/or sanctions.

[flying rabbit]

38. Thanks for your posts

Very informative

[mdbl]

66. what if it could be proven the statement caused harm?

Either emotional or physical? Does that have any bearing on it? For instance, it cause her to lose a job?

[branford]

82. No, not if the statement was clearly offered as an opinion.

Proof of harm is necessary to support a defamation claim, but is only relevant to statements or publications offered as assertions of fact, not opinion.

For instance, can you even imagine how irreparably crowded court dockets would be if people could sue for defamation just from the comments posted on Facebook on a single day?

[mdbl]

99. no wonder our media is so screwed up

no one is held accountable for their statements any longer.

[elehhhhna]

93. Thank you.

If Trump yells FIRE at a rally, thats also NoT protected political speech.

[geek tragedy]

9. At what point does refusing to enforce the law become stupid? nt

[branford]

19. How long did all the various Occupy protests last across the country?

As I indicate in my links below, it's actually quite easy to argue that many of the Occupy protests were actually legally worse that what's occurring in Oregon, certainly the most prominent of the protests at Zuccotti Park protest near where I live and work as an attorney in Manhattan.

It might not be a popular opinion among many here, but criminal trespass and related laws are not excused when you agree with the politics of the offenders.

Regardless of political views, absent true exigent necessity, law enforcement should always endeavor to peacefully resolve potentially explosive, no less political, situations. Militant and aggressive policing is unnecessary and should be avoided. This is a sentiment I hear often on DU, and I totally agree. I'm not about to make an exception because the offenders hold views I find particularly loathsome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7520302
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7519947

[A Little Weird]

29. Really?

Did the Occupy protesters show up with guns, break into a government building, access computers, illegally use federal equipment, and take down a fence? Did they attempt to follow and intimidate federal workers and local law enforcement personnel and their families? No. They did none of those things.

There's no comparison between them and the Occupy protesters. (Certainly no comparison in how law enforcement responded - tear gas, batons, and arrests used to suppress Occupy vs the complete lack of response to the Oregon terrorists.)

[geek tragedy]

30. None of those cases involved (a) armed force; (b) claim of

title over the land in question; (c) federal land; (d) breaking and entering federal buildings; (e) illegally accessing government computers and files, violating employee privacy.

Law enforcement did use lawful force to evict peaceful, unarmed OWS protestors in most cases, with some jurisdictions stepping over the line.

Eventually, non-lethal force will likely need to be used here. And if these armed insurrectionists resist with armed force, then their blood will need to water the trees of Liberty in that forest.

[branford]

31. Respectfully, you're viewing the Occupy protests through a lens

of strong political sympathy and agreement and not pure legality or practical effect.

I offered my earlier links where I compare both protests in greater detail, and a simple Google search and reading sources unsympathetic to OWS will reveal ample discussion of the various criminal and civil offenses committed by the Occupiers.

Most notably, it really hard to claim that the militia morons taking over an empty building in the middle of nowhere during a cold winter in Oregon is somehow more disruptive to government services or the day-to-day lives of innocent Americans than what happened in OWS in one of the densest and busiest parts of downtown Manhattan near the World Trade Center site and various government offices. Also, OWS were hardly welcome by the actual residents and workers of lower Manhattan, including most Democrats and liberals, after the first few days, and the law enforcement, sanitation, and other associated costs to the city were astronomical. There were ultimately few arrests, fewer prosecutions, and generally token sentences for convictions.

I imagine the firearms are one aspect of this story that particularly infuriates many here. However, open carry is totally legal in Oregon and the guns are really far less of a legal issue than some believe or would like.

In any event, you inquired how long the authorities should wait before taking more aggressive actions against the militia. My response now, as it has been through this entire mess, is that unless and until exigency truly requires immediate action, law enforcement patience should continue. Claims that we need to "uphold the rule of law" or extraneous discussions about how vile the ideas of the offenders were not convincing when I heard my Republican colleagues demand more militant, and wholly unnecessary, action against OWS, and my opinions have not changed simply because the targets now happen to be unrepentant bigots. This is even before any consideration of the fact that such action will likely make these idiots martys and increase support for their cause, including by mainstream Americans who currently want them to leave, or knowing that another Waco or Ruby Ridge under a Democrat administration can seriously hurt our electoral opportunities in an election year.

[geek tragedy]

41. You seem to be arguing that we should cede that refuge

to the extremists. So long as there's no 'exigency,' you're arguing that these armed goons should remain above the law and be granted their own private kingdom. Additionally you are conflating political protest (OWS) with armed insurrection and forcible seizure of federal park land.

That land belongs to the people of the United States. Allowing them to seize it by force of arms is not an acceptable alternative. If they do not leave voluntarily, they will need to be treated as a hostile armed enemy.

[branford]

45. I am no more arguing that we should "cede" the refuge to the militia

by supporting the current law enforcement policy of patience, than I was "ceding" the various public and private property occupied in the OWS protests to the occupiers. That's simplistic and willfully ignorant nonsense.

I don't want anyone to needless get hurt over property if a little patience can end the matter peacefully. No matter our shared disgust of the militia, there's simply no exigent circumstances warranting immediate, no less violent, action. If those circumstances change, so will my opinion, and assume that of law enforcement.

I find it sad and hypocritical that so many people here on DU who claim to be adamantly (and correctly) against militant and aggressive policing, particularly against people engaging in civil disobedience, are now suddenly more "law and order" than most conservatives of my acquaintance, with some filled with what can only be described as a bloodlust.

[niyad]

47. comparing the bundy cowliphate and ows? really? wow. . . .just. . wow.

[branford]

53. Whether you like it or not,

a great many activities of OWS were indeed quite criminal, including their primary occupation of both public and private lands, and as I explained earlier, some of their actions were arguably much worse as a legal and policy matter.

The law doesn't change because you or I might have sympathy for or political agreement with the offenders, and neither do the standards of good and safe policing.

[randome]

78. It's called dispassionate observation. I always appreciate someone willing to see things that way.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

52. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Do you favor immediately preventing these chaps from coming and going, and also blocking supplies from getting in while cutting off power and water?

[branford]

54. I have no personal objections to cutting-off water or power

Last edited Thu Jan 14, 2016, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)

and similar containment actions, although I defer to the law enforcement on the scene who have personal knowledge of what's occurring, as well as the appropriate tactical training and experience. These people above anyone else want to see a quick and peaceful resolution.

As I stated, I simply don't want to see anyone needlessly killed or hurt over an otherwise empty cabin in the woods, particularly if the matter can be resolved mostly by just waiting. I similarly don't want to do anything that could possibly give these militia morons any credibility among a wider audience, encourage more violent acts or reprisals by their fringe supporters (e.g., Oklahoma City bombing), or cause another Waco or Ruby Ridge that would hurt Democratic candidates this election year.

I fully understand the hostility towards the militia and their vile ideas. I share this disgust completely. However, it should not goad us into foolish and violent actions, nor betray our principles that demand far less militant and aggressive policing.

[L. Coyote]

76. You make very good points. However, this is terrorism, people are being terrorized.

And the list of crimes is quite long and growing daily. Plus, felony crimes are being committed with the threat of armed force. This will be prosecuted and the #FreeRangeNuts will end up caged birds with the friends #BundyCultGod told Ammon over tea to help.

[Uponthegears]

81. Was with you

right up until the very end. As a civil rights lawyer retired after 30 years practice, I agree that there is no cause of action for libel or slander. As a defender of civil rights, I agree that the facts no more justify violence against Y'all-queda at Malheur than they did against OWS outside your office. I would have like to have seen you more strenuously acknowledge that there was a substantial amount of force leveled against OWS, but I understand how you may have felt such a discussion would have obscured your point.

Here is where you lost me:

"I similarly don't want to do anything that could possibly . . . cause another Waco or Ruby Ridge that would hurt Democratic candidates this election year."

I am not sure where so many people get the idea that Ruby Ridge and Waco either: (a) were examples of the use of force to suppress political protest;" or, (b) cost Democratic candidates votes.

Regardless of the excessive force used during the killing of Randy Weaver's wife, the fact of the matter was that the violence at Ruby Ridge began when Randy's son murdered a federal agent. The only folks who voted Republican after Ruby Ridge were the same anti-government, Dixie flag in Idaho waving, "they're coming to get our guns" folks who thought it was outrageous that Randy was being charged with federal gun law violations and who were NEVER going to vote Democratic in the first place.

The only votes we "lost" after Waco were from those people who thought they should have executed an arrest warrant at the Koresh compound MONTHS EARLIER and hauled that psychopathic mass murderer off to jail BEFORE he started "consummating his marriage" with his child brides and had time to set up the self-immolation mechanism he used to burn innocent women, children, and babies alive. Trust me, Tim McVeigh and the Nichols were not "lost Democratic votes."

[branford]

83. I believe the visuals of dead rural white guys at the hands

of a liberal, black president who strongly supports gun control, all over an otherwise empty cabin in the wood, could provide sufficient motivation for a lot of right-wing individuals to get to the polls this election season when they would normally stay home, particularly in potentially competitive states like Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.

Similarly, most mainstream Republicans do not currently support the militia in Oregon and want them to peacefully leave. However, any raid or actions resulting in images even remotely similar to that from Waco will quickly change their tune and be used as a political cudgel against out party.

I actually largely agree with your analysis of Ruby Ridge and Waco, but perception and spin trump reality in the realm of politics. You'll also note from my repeated posts on the subject, the political implications of law enforcement or political overreaction to the militia in Oregon are far down of my list of concerns, well below the primary preservation of life, followed by not actually turning these bigots into martyrs and/or encouraging more occupations or far worse such as bombings (e.g., Oklahoma City) by other, often worse groups or individuals in defense of or revenge for anything that could happen in Oregon.

If our only major disagreement concerns an analysis of Waco or Ruby Ridge and how they might politically reflect on the militia in Oregon now, I'd say we're largely on the same page.

[Uponthegears]

97. Yep

You summed it up well.

[davidpdx]

61. Did you see the article about the occupation of the refuge costing $1.2 million a week?

Certainly they are doing damage to the refuge, costing huge amounts of money for law enforcement, causing thousands of employees to be put on administrative leave, and disrupting tourism and the economy of Burns.

[branford]

62. I've seen many of the articles,

and it doesn't change my opinion at all, although the cost estimate you cite appears very inflated in light of similar costs incurred during the Occupy protests across the country (see below). Further, how many dead or injured police officers, innocent bystanders or even militia are worth saving a few dollars (or the political fallout that could cost Democrats dearly in this year's elections)?

I would also be very leery about relying of such costs in support of more radical and aggressive action. Such arguments are used far more often against progressive demonstrations and causes than these odd idiots. By careful what you wish for and the precedents you set, for they will surely be used against you and those people and causes you support.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-protests-cost-cities-millions/story?id=14975940
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/23/occupy-protests-cost_n_1109695.html

[davidpdx]

64. I'm not advocating violence, just stating that this siege (incident, whatever you call it)

is costing a pretty penny and for now it will be the tax payers that pick up the tab. Apparently there are a lot of employees who were put on admin leave. Maybe the figure is inflated, but even then I would believe closer to a million a week might be accurate if it is.

[branford]

65. I have no objection to the word "siege," although it's a little hyperbolic.

I also don't doubt that the siege is costing the taxpayers, although it was my understanding that the building was empty and the refuge's administrative were largely dormant during the winter, the location is too remote to really affect government services or affect the regional economy, and there seems to be more reporters in the area than citizens and law enforcement.

All protests, no less acts of criminal civil disobedience such as BLM blocking highways and bridges, OWS's weeks long occupation of public and private real estate in downtown Manhattan and other metropolises, or bigot militia on federal preserves or BLM land, have steep financial costs. As a free and open society we balance these costs with other important interests, particularly safety of law enforcement, the general public and even the alleged criminals.

Right now, with no lives in imminent danger or other exigent circumstances warranting more direct, and potentially dangerous and politically precarious, action, law enforcement has chosen a strategy of patience, believing the environment and loss of interest over time will resolve this matter peacefully. Unless things demonstrably change, I agree with and support this policy.

[blackspade]

40. Peacefully resolved like in Nevada?

Where the Feds passively accepted firearms pointed at them?
Where the Bundy's and their fellow sovereign scumbags suffered no consequences which allowed them to start a second round of domestic terrorism?

This would have been violently resolved if these wack jobs were African Americans, Native Americans, Environmentalists, or Occupy.

[niyad]

46. to what, exactly, are you referring? nothing in the article talks about action being taken

against this perverted little fuckwit. the only threats in the article were the ones made against the judge.

[branford]

55. I condemned the comments,

and first noted that I hope no one is goaded into doing anything stupid or illegal in response. The defamation discussion was an unfortunate tangent because some inquired of me whether the young woman would be able to sue for libel.

[Ilsa]

96. If inly his despicable comments would cause

His friends and listeners to turn him off, ignore him, and tell him to roast in hell.

[Roy Rolling]

4. "broadcaster"

He he. Probably "smallcaster" would be more appropriate. Nobody listens to these idiots but their close friends and sponsors. Everybody else, not so much.

[Eugene]

6. They let him in again? He got tossed out Monday.

'Journalist' Pete Santilli Tossed Out Of Town Meeting For Being Rude (Crooks and Liars)

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/journalist-pete-santilli-tossed-out-town

[randys1]

10. He and others want a shooting civil war. Or they think they do. I dont because I know

how stupid angry they are.

They do very much want to harm liberals, Blacks, Gays, etc.

Very much

[drm604]

7. You'd think that they would realize that constantly antagonizing the locals is not a good plan.

Dumb and full of hate.

[branford]

25. These yahoos want to goad an overreaction by law enforcement,

no less vigilantism.

They think they want to be martyrs, and if the locals or law enforcement do something stupid or illegal themselves, the militia will get exactly what they want, along with some support from people who previously wanted them to promptly leave, including in all likelihood some of the Republican presidential candidates.

[tabasco]

8. Sue for slander.

Make these liars pay for their lies.

[elehhhhna]

12. I suspect gramps knows a lawyer that will prosecute this slander/libel pretty well...

[dhill926]

14. this piece of shit...

needs to have his ass kicked....by a bunch of pissed off ranchers and townsfolk. Better yet, tar and feather him and run his worthless ass out of town. Enough....

[SwankyXomb]

80. They hanged Lord Haw-Haw

[central scrutinizer]

16. Stone her in the public square!

Cowliphate Sharia law demands it.

[n2doc]

17. Well coddling them doesn't seem to be working

Maybe they need to be treated like ordinary citizens are treated. I frankly think they would run like the cowards they clearly are at the first shot. The longer this goes on the crazier it seems to get. We are so afraid of "another Waco" that we are going to end up with one after goading these idiots into thinking they are invulnerable.

[Aerows]

88. Everyone said that when Cliven Bundy

got away with pointing rifles at Federal Agents, that it would embolden them. And look what happened - now we have this lunacy.

I agree with you that this is another Waco in the making because they are ramping up the rhetoric and the longer they stay there, the more they are going to draw other lunatics to join them.

Sooner or later one of the hotheads is going to either kill a fellow militia member, or they are going to harass the wrong resident. They are following people around that live there and are harassing them. That is a crime. People should not have to put up with that in their own town by a gang of out of state thugs.

What I don't want to see are innocent people getting gunned down. I don't want to see law enforcement personnel gunned down for doing their job. I especially don't want to see other loony birds follow their example in other areas because this particular lot of nutjobs are getting away with it.

It's only a matter of time before some other group of armed fools decide that the law doesn't apply to them, either, the longer this continues.

[Paladin]

18. Whay would anybody expect anything better from these scumbags? (nt)

[vkkv]

20. Conservatives always make the best -

idiotic numbskull ASSHOLES.

n'est-ce pas?

(please excuse my French..)

[virgogal]

23. Dreadful. Reminds me of Letterman's sexual insult

directed at Sara Palin's 14 year old. The kids should be left alone.

[tblue37]

36. That insult was directed t Bristol, not Willow. nt

[Ferd Berfel]

26. THe Right wing is dangerously insane

[Lars39]

27. Can you still sue someone for defamation of character?

[branford]

33. Not for statements of opinion,

and the comments or publications actually need to have damaged the plaintiff's reputation.

In this instance, the comments, while unequivocally vile, were protected opinions, and it would be VERY hard to convince any jury that anyone believes this 15 year old girl is really criminally selling her sexual services for money based on Santilli's remarks.

If such stupidity were legally actionable, every political and social talking head, conservative, liberal and otherwise, would be living in court and bankrupt.

[Nac Mac Feegle]

71. Just out of legal curiosity

Is there some sort of coverage if some relative were to do something involving a 2x4 and Santelli's head? I seem to remember a "fighting words doctrine" mentioned somewhere.

At least a jury trial would be desirable in any case. Video of his statements would cause me, as a juror, to vote for acquittal.

[branford]

84. Any physical attack on Santilli can and would be criminally prosecuted.

"Fighting words" in a tenuous defense, at best, particularly in the 21st Century, and also generally requires that the "fighting" be contemporaneous with the insult.

Anyone who attacks Santilli now for his comments then could not avail themselves of such a defense.

Lastly, be careful about even implicitly supporting such vigilantism. I assure you that some members of our side, including respected spokespeople, are certainly not above making incredibly stupid and offensive remarks. I doubt you would be as sympathetic if "our" people were assaulted, nor would you (or I) relish a cycle of revenge attacks or escalation, the very situation our criminal justice system was designed to prevent.

I understand your frustration with Santilli and those like him. He is an ass. However, we live in a free and open society that respects free speech, and tolerating the Santilli's of the world is the price we pay. Emulating him or his ideas by reacting violently also does nothing more than bring us down to his level and justify his loathsome statements.

[yellowcanine]

69. He said the judge was "prostituting" his granddaughter. Despicable opinion but not

slander.

[LanternWaste]

87. "I would not treat her like a prostitute like he did.”

"If it were my granddaughter, I would not treat her like a prostitute like he did.”

[Geronimoe]

42. Keep it up and the law may need to....

protect the Bundy Gang from the town folks carrying pitchforks and torches.

[leanforward]

57. You leave the kids alone

I don't waste my time listening to conservative broadcasters. However, we need to start a "flush santilli" with advertisers. I have some young people around me and that fool spouting off against youth needs to have his foot nailed to the floor. You support the kids, girls and boys from that trash mouth. BTW, my definition of girls and boys goes beyond 21. The young woman voiced a concern, we must support that concern and in this case move out in front of the kids pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[onecaliberal]

58. Sue for slander and defamation.

[PersonNumber503602]

60. *face palm*

Someone needs to send them some dictionaries so they can look up the words prostitution and communist.

[saltpoint]

63. Not familiar with Mr. Santilli, but

this young woman was meeting all criteria for adult citizenship by attending a town meeting and speaking her peace.

Santilli managed only the attendance component.

[L. Coyote]

79. Santilli was thrown out of the meeting and his actions there preceed her saying this.

So not only didn't #PSguy manage the attendance component, as you say, but his attendance is part of the reason this young woman is terrorized. He IS one of the terrorists in this case. I watched it LIVE on his feed as he was escorted to the sidewalk.

[saltpoint]

90. Didn't have that information,

L. Coyote, and am happy you have provided it.

Thank you.

[Vinca]

67. It's time to stop treating this bunch like a 5th grade outing at a nature preserve.

They need to go directly to jail.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

68. I say let him keep talking!!!

[laureloak]

72. He said the Judge prostituted his granddaughter and NOT

that she is a prostitute.

[branford]

85. Correct, and although still a loathsome remark,

the distinction is very legally significant for purposes of a defamation claim.

[elehhhhna]

94. Again. Mistaken.

The girl was identified. You're trolling.

[Aerows]

86. There is being an asshole

and then there is this. I won't insult anuses everywhere by calling this broadcaster an asshole. Assholes are useful.

[Liberal_in_LA]

98. huh?