Rather than suing their insurance company, why don't they sue Dinesh D'Souza? It's his film.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Does Salem have a case?
- Thread starter 30james
- Start date
Rather than suing their insurance company, why don't they sue Dinesh D'Souza? It's his film.
Pretty sure D'Souza was also sued in the defamation case.
As I'm sure you know, when these lawsuits are filed, the plaintiffs rarely stop with just one person. I wouldn't be surprised if D'Souza also had an insurance policy, though, as Michael pointed out, it might not protect him in a situation like this.
Depends on their agreement with him. They may have assumed all costs going forward once he delivered the film.
Plus, they're paying for defamation coverage and don't appear ready yet to admit that 2000 Mules violated the terms of that coverage. I suspect they know they're out of luck and are suing hoping for an out-of-court settlement that will offset some of their losses.
Their worst nightmare would be the insurer insisting on a trial where discovery would uncover Salem's knowledge that the allegations in the film had no basis in fact.
I am unaware of anything in 2000 Mules being proven as false. Lots of allegations though. Allegations mean nothing.
I believed the 51 former intelligence officials that falsely discredited a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop as supposed "Russian disinformation". (Silly me, I know, I can be so gullible at times!). Under the legal theories I am reading here on this radio page, it seems like the New York Post has a viable case of defamation against every one of them since it was formally authenticated in a court of law just this week. Or does this only work one way?
I though the point of the film was to prove that the election was a fraud. In that case, they're the ones who have to prove it.
Because the election was certified, and that is a fact.
They were giving their opinion. Because the Post didn't allow anyone to actually examine the laptop or its files. That was why so many journalists waited until it was turned over to the FBI. Until then, it was, as the VOA reported, an ''October surprise.''
Much like the Dominion lawsuit against Fox (and others), nothing in 2,000 Mules may have been proven false, but, reading between the lines, Salem would not likely have ended distribution of the film, which was making it money, if it were true.
I think that goes back to Michael's point, which is that Salem is probably hoping to get the insurance company to agree to a settlement. Salem probably doesn't want the case to actually go to trial because it would likely have to show the claims in 2,000 Mules were substantiated.
When involving public figures, defamation lawsuits tend to work better one way than the other. When a public figure slanders a private individual, it has a large audience and reach that the average person can't push back against. Public figures occasionally win slander/libel cases, but they usually have much tougher cases to prove. Again, some of that goes back to the access to media and to the potential audience they have. They have ways to rebut false accusations against them that the average person doesn't have.
2000 Mules essentially accuses Democrats of conspiring to steal the 2020 election, which is a federal crime.
It also shows the plaintiff, Mark Andrews, on camera and accuses him of commiting election fraud. "What you are witnessing is a crime."
As BigA says, the burden of proof lies with D'Souza and Salem. And as with every single one of these cases, they can't back up their claims with credible evidence.
From the Post's point of view, it's more valuable to make the doubters eat crow. Costs less money as well.
That's what they've been doing for the last few days.
Salem: "God, they are suing us. Smite them dead!"
When the producers were put under oath, their answer was "we got nuthin'". Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing
Sorry fybush it's supposed to be about Salem
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Unfortunately, this is a situation where the original topic was only tangentially connected to broadcasting, because the legal action is connected to on-air remarks about a movie, which then ended up becoming more of the focus as it was the root of the whole issue.
This is one of those rare occasions where a thread almost inevitably had to become political because of how it started. Of course, if it goes too much deeper, I fully expect a "thread closed" to pop up ...
Made in a movie promoted by a radio company. Hosts on the radio company's stations continue to promote the viewpoint, even though they no longer mention the specific person. As radio companies diversify their holdings (because there's no growth in owning radio stations), these kinds of things will happen. The part of it that's questionable for RD is whether it belongs on the LA board, when there's a similar discussion already on the News/Talk board.
Exactly. This is not "tangental", and, not long ago, would have resulted in implications regarding Salem's fitness to hold broadcast licenses, of which it has 95.
I guess you're referring to the RKO case? I guess someone would have to file a petition to deny?
Not just RKO. KMPC in 1950 is a good example here, and a more relevant comparison to the Salem case:
I REALLY recommend anyone read the contents of that link before commenting.
Following a hearing, the chief counsel of the FCC recommended George A. Richards be stripped of his licenses, but before oral arguments could begin, Richards died. His widow sold KMPC to Gene Autry.
Last edited:
I've always wondered, at least when it comes to religious stations, if someone who may be atheist or just cranky towards religion in general, routinely files license renewal arguments against against them. I could see someone saying it's a government endorsing religion of one type or another because it's a government agency [FCC] issuing them the license.
And just to be clear, I am not a huge fan of them, although the music on some is tolerable. [Can't remember what station I stumbled across but it was an actual Heavy Metal Christian song and all I could think was just "Wow!"] My big problem is they are supposed to be NON-COMMERCIAL stations on the non-commercial end of the frequency yet they have been "invading" the commercial spectrum of the frequency quite regularly.
And just to be clear, I am not a huge fan of them, although the music on some is tolerable. [Can't remember what station I stumbled across but it was an actual Heavy Metal Christian song and all I could think was just "Wow!"] My big problem is they are supposed to be NON-COMMERCIAL stations on the non-commercial end of the frequency yet they have been "invading" the commercial spectrum of the frequency quite regularly.
Last edited:
- Status