Federal judge rules Rachel Maddow's show is not legitimate news

[evince]

As if we needed to hear anyone else say it, even an Obama-appointed federal judge has now ruled that Rachel Maddow's show and parent company cannot be sued for blatantly lying about people because it is clear to anyone who watches her show that it is "make up whatever we feel like" opinion instead of fact-based reporting.

"The Obama-appointed judge Cynthia Bashant dismissed the defamation lawsuit on the grounds that Maddow’s audience knows she’s hyperpartisan, and thus, as Greenwald put it, that her audience “understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them"

Judge Rules Rachel Maddow's Show Isn't News​

Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.

 

[evince]

Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.

From your own link ass hair

 

[artichoke]

Fucking liar



It’s news and commentary


He clearly said she delivers NEWS


YOU TRUMP TURDS ARE LYING SHIT PILES

What part of "pure opinion" don't you understand, moron?

The judge disqualifying her from being sued for blatantly lying about people by ruling that she is not legitimate news...is exactly what that link shows, ridiculous crack-smoker. Learn how to comprehend what you read.

Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news.

Yeah, "different" in that she lies and slanders people with hysterical conspiracy theories that make the National Enquirer look credible and mainstream.

From your own link ass hair

And? Lay down the crack pipe, THEN read things. Then you won't post meaningless things while acting like there's something scandalous about them like a deranged moron.



Next.

 

[AProudLefty]

^This moron thinks we don't know that it's an opinion tv show.

 

[artichoke]

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
This message is hidden because AProudLefty is on your ignore list.

Butthurt stalker says what?

 

[evince]

https://casetext.com/case/herring-networks-inc-v-maddow




LINK TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPT YOU LYING SHIT BAGS



ILL GO GET THRE PART THAT PROVES yet again YOU ARE LYING DIRT DICKS

 

[evince]

https://casetext.com/case/herring-networks-inc-v-maddow




LINK TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPT YOU LYING SHIT BAGS



ILL GO GET THRE PART THAT PROVES yet again YOU ARE LYING DIRT DICKS

B. Protected Activity
Defendants have the burden to establish that Maddow's actions alleged in the complaint arise from protected activity.

Section 425.16, subdivision (e) sets forth four categories of protected activity. Subdivision (e)(4) defines protected activity to include "any ... conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." The "public interest" requirement is construed broadly to include "any issue in which the public is interested." Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula , 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1042, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210 (2008) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff agrees that Maddow was exercising her constitutional right of free speech and her statements concerned a public issue. Thus, Plaintiff does not contest that the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute is met. ("Opp'n," ECF No. 19, at 5–6 n.1.) The Court agrees and turns to the second prong.

 

[evince]

Judge clearly ruled Maddow had every right under the laws to say what she said you fucking Putin ass lapping liars

 

[AProudLefty]

Poor Armpit.

 

[artichoke]

Judge clearly ruled Maddow had every right under the laws to say what she said you fucking Putin ass lapping liars

Nobody denied that, moronic conspiracy theorist.

I can break out the crayons if necessary.

What is being claimed (which only a total fucking moron would need re-clarified this many times) is that the judge said she was legally safe...wait for it...BECAUSE SHE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A LEGITIMATE JOURNALIST.

In other words, you being the biggest fucking moron on this forum unable to comprehend the simplest concepts in no way makes other people liars for telling the truth.

 

[AProudLefty]

^This dumbass actually thinks we don't know that?

 

[artichoke]

Still not grasping the whole ignore feature, huh?

 

[artichoke]

Cat got your tongue, evince? Notice how every time we look closely to see who is lying it turns out to be you?

I never said what kind of evidence I would provide. You made that up, liar who falsely smears others as liars.

Of course, with how you still detect imaginary secret Russian agents everywhere and can't follow straightforward conversations, it is entirely possible you imagined the whole thing and just don't REALIZE you're making false accusations.



Either way, I can and did prove my assertions, while yours turned out to be lies, which is why you still can't find JACK SHIT to prove your false claim.

Remember this next time you feel like throwing one of your ridiculous idiot tantrums against your moral and intellectual superiors.

It is always so satisfying to obliterate evince's hysterical idiot rage and lies.

I feel like I've destroyed enough scumbag Democrat falsehoods and propaganda for today.

Adios for today, all.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

How often is this woman right about anything?

She did make a mistake once, and she admitted it- that night on the air. The night that Trump's 2016 tax forms became public, it showed that Trump paid $17K in Personal Income taxes, and she had previously stated that Trump probably didn't pay anything!

So she was embarrassed about it, as that kind of back-fired, but for HEAVEN'S SAKE EVERYBODY- 17K? REALLY? DONALD TRUMP BILLION FUCKING AIRE PAYS 17K IN TAXES?

SICK BUT HILARIOUS!

She has never been proven wrong since, so she learned her lesson about making predictions and assumptions- SHE USES ONLY THE FACTS!

 

[AProudLefty]

Heh. Armpit is too retarded to understand that the ignore feature doesn't work. I can still participate and discuss with OTHER posters.

 

[Grumpy]

"

"

 

[Jade Dragon]

Heh. Armpit is too retarded to understand that the ignore feature doesn't work. I can still participate and discuss with OTHER posters.

Capt. Bullshit tries too hard to be insincere and deceitful. I've never seen him post honestly, he's always misrepresenting and leaving stuff out.

 

[artichoke]

She did make a mistake once, and she admitted it- that night on the air.

Sure, if by "once," you mean she almost never stops getting caught intentionally wildly misinforming all five of her lunatic fringe viewers, as with the blatant and deliberate slander on which this lawsuit was based, and on which all of these lists of her pathological lying are based:

Maddow Tells Viewers Taxes Going Up (80 Percent Of Taxpayers Actually Get A Tax Cut)

Rachel Maddow’s 17 Most Audacious and Paranoid Russia Hoax Lies

Lies, Damned Lies, & Rachel Maddow

But sure, let's go with "once."

The night that Trump's 2016 tax forms became public, it showed that Trump paid $17K in Personal Income taxes, and she had previously stated that Trump probably didn't pay anything!

So she was embarrassed about it, as that kind of back-fired, but for HEAVEN'S SAKE EVERYBODY- 17K? REALLY? DONALD TRUMP BILLION FUCKING AIRE PAYS 17K IN TAXES?

SICK BUT HILARIOUS!

1) Even your example of her admitting that she lied and "correcting" her lie is another example of her telling an outright lie.

"The New York Times’ claim that President Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is wrong, based on a flawed understanding of how taxes are paid.

The figures below, drawn from the New York Times’s own analysis of Trump’s tax-return data for 2017, show that Trump paid $7,435,857 in taxes in 2017.

The Times says the tax return data show that Trump’s earnings were negative for the year, so he owned nothing in regular income taxes. But he was subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a parallel tax system aimed at making sure wealthy people cannot use deductions to eliminate their tax liability altogether. According to the Times, “the A.M.T. formula disallowed $45 million in losses that Mr. Trump had carried over from prior years.”

As a result, Trump was left with an AMT bill of $7,435,857, according to the Times.

There was no way for Trump to avoid this tax liability. He had to pay it down using his assets. And he did."

The New York Times Is Wrong — Trump Paid Millions in Taxes in 2017​

Trump paid 24 percent tax rate in 2005, reported $105 million write-down, return shows

New York Times’ Trump Tax Return ‘Bombshell’ Is A Joke

2) This larger dishonest Demagogue Party talking point you are trying to peddle here...that the rich don't pay their "fair share"...is also another blatant lie.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Do you people EVER say anything that's actually accurate or true?

She has never been proven wrong since, so she learned her lesson about making predictions and assumptions- SHE USES ONLY THE FACTS!

One would have thought the crushing and devastating implosion of her ratings after all her lies propping up the Russia collusion hoax were exposed by Mueller would have been that moment. But since she never stopped lying, the whole question is pretty much moot anyway.



But no, she is still caught in wildly false tabloid trash whoppers on a daily basis. Total horseshit from a wishful thinking fanboy trying to salvage his garbage "news" source.

 

[artichoke]

Capt. Bullshit tries too hard to be insincere and deceitful. I've never seen him post honestly, he's always misrepresenting and leaving stuff out.

Captain Snivels hides behind generalities and never gets specific when slandering people from the sidelines for a REASON. Every time one of these debate-avoiding crybabies tries to back up their smear campaigns in any way, their easily-debunked sleaze and misinformation gets humiliatingly dismantled and obliterated in front of everyone and they get exposed as the only people actually being insincere and deceitful.

So by all means, get specific. Post examples. I dare you. I would love to once again remove all doubt for everyone what a cowardly crying scumbag you always prove to be.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Sure, if by "once," you mean she almost never stops getting caught intentionally wildly misinforming all five of her lunatic fringe viewers, as with the blatant and deliberate slander on which this lawsuit was based, and on which all of these lists of her pathological lying are based:

Maddow Tells Viewers Taxes Going Up (80 Percent Of Taxpayers Actually Get A Tax Cut)

Rachel Maddow’s 17 Most Audacious and Paranoid Russia Hoax Lies

Lies, Damned Lies, & Rachel Maddow

But sure, let's go with "once."



1) Even your example of her admitting that she lied and "correcting" her lie is another example of her telling an outright lie.

"The New York Times’ claim that President Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is wrong, based on a flawed understanding of how taxes are paid.

The figures below, drawn from the New York Times’s own analysis of Trump’s tax-return data for 2017, show that Trump paid $7,435,857 in taxes in 2017.

The Times says the tax return data show that Trump’s earnings were negative for the year, so he owned nothing in regular income taxes. But he was subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), a parallel tax system aimed at making sure wealthy people cannot use deductions to eliminate their tax liability altogether. According to the Times, “the A.M.T. formula disallowed $45 million in losses that Mr. Trump had carried over from prior years.”

As a result, Trump was left with an AMT bill of $7,435,857, according to the Times.

There was no way for Trump to avoid this tax liability. He had to pay it down using his assets. And he did."

The New York Times Is Wrong — Trump Paid Millions in Taxes in 2017​

Trump paid 24 percent tax rate in 2005, reported $105 million write-down, return shows

New York Times’ Trump Tax Return ‘Bombshell’ Is A Joke

2) This larger dishonest Demagogue Party talking point you are trying to peddle here...that the rich don't pay their "fair share"...is also another blatant lie.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Do you people EVER say anything that's actually accurate or true?



One would have thought the crushing and devastating implosion of her ratings after all her lies propping up the Russia collusion hoax were exposed by Mueller would have been that moment. But since she never stopped lying, the whole question is pretty much moot anyway.



But no, she is still caught in wildly false tabloid trash whoppers on a daily basis. Total horseshit from a wishful thinking fanboy trying to salvage his garbage "news" source.