PDA

View Full Version : Bill Maher Defends Calling Sarah Palin a “C-nt”



Apocalypse
03-15-2012, 11:19 AM
(Politico) (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html) — Bill Maher, who has attracted fresh criticism for past comments about Sarah Palin in the aftermath of Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a “slut,” said in an interview that comparing his use of the “c word” to the radio host’s controversial remarks is “ridiculous.”


“To compare that to Rush is ridiculous – he went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves,” Maher told Jake Tapper of ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/). “I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican.’ Sarah Barracuda.”


Maher added, “The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”


Palin described the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s remarks as “the definition of hypocrisy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73706.html),” charging that plenty of “leftist radicals” are never held accountable for their name-calling, while Maher was similarly blasted by the radio personality on the air.


“You won’t get apologies from people like Bill Maher or all the other leftists who have said some of the most horrible, despicable things about us, and people like Sarah Palin,” Limbaugh said earlier in the month.


Maher, who recently made headlines for donating $1 million (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/maher-defends-million-obama-super-pac-donation-115728.html)to President Barack Obama’s super PAC, told Tapper that his comedy routine that referred to Palin as a “c—t” drew “one of the biggest laughs,” and that “not one person ever registered disapproval.”


Keep reading… (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html)

And this is the reason I refuse to get HBO at home. I refuse to help fund idiots like this ass.

Adam Wood
03-15-2012, 11:24 AM
(Politico) (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html) — Bill Maher, who has attracted fresh criticism for past comments about Sarah Palin in the aftermath of Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a “slut,” said in an interview that comparing his use of the “c word” to the radio host’s controversial remarks is “ridiculous.”


“To compare that to Rush is ridiculous – he went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves,” Maher told Jake Tapper of ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/). “I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican.’ Sarah Barracuda.”


Maher added, “The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”


Palin described the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s remarks as “the definition of hypocrisy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73706.html),” charging that plenty of “leftist radicals” are never held accountable for their name-calling, while Maher was similarly blasted by the radio personality on the air.


“You won’t get apologies from people like Bill Maher or all the other leftists who have said some of the most horrible, despicable things about us, and people like Sarah Palin,” Limbaugh said earlier in the month.


Maher, who recently made headlines for donating $1 million (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/maher-defends-million-obama-super-pac-donation-115728.html)to President Barack Obama’s super PAC, told Tapper that his comedy routine that referred to Palin as a “c—t” drew “one of the biggest laughs,” and that “not one person ever registered disapproval.”


Keep reading… (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html)

And this is the reason I refuse to get HBO at home. I refuse to help fund idiots like this ass.

Same here. Every once in a while, the cable company will call up and ask if I'd like this or that bundle with movie channels, and every time I ask if HBO is one of the channels. "Yes." "Then the answer is not just no, but hell no. so long as that dickhead Maher is on that network, I will not give them one red cent. *click*"

txradioguy
03-15-2012, 11:36 AM
Bill Maher = Liberal hypocrisy at it's finest. Justify why it's ok for ME to say nasty and vile things about women while bashing someone else for the same thing.

Starbuck
03-15-2012, 11:39 AM
So I guess he won't be asking for an apology from me if I call him a dipshit.

txradioguy
03-15-2012, 11:47 AM
Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”



Careful there Bill...if the law was written the way you believe it was...then it also protects former female VP candidates from getting called the C word by pot smoking douchebags like you.

SaintLouieWoman
03-15-2012, 12:38 PM
Careful there Bill...if the law was written the way you believe it was...then it also protects former female VP candidates from getting called the C word by pot smoking douchebags like you.
His argument also doesn't hold water as Laura Ingraham is not an office holder. So the libel laws should shelter her also, according to Maher. So I guess that any women other than Palin and Michele Bachman are NOT fair game for his trash mouth.

He can't have it both ways, but wait, as they say in those stupid TV commercials, libs always want to have their cake and eat it, too. :livid:

ralph wiggum
03-15-2012, 12:53 PM
Didn't this Fluke woman make herself a public figure by appearing before a congressional committee?

Adam Wood
03-15-2012, 12:55 PM
Didn't this Fluke woman make herself a public figure by appearing before a congressional committee?No, no. That's different. Somehow.

Starbuck
03-15-2012, 02:03 PM
Didn't this Fluke woman make herself a public figure by appearing before a congressional committee?

Common mistake. Fluke didn't appear before a congressional committee. She tried to appear at a congressional committee but was not allowed to testify. She actually appeared at a "hearing" set up by Pelosi in the Cannon Building (ever hear of it? Me neither). Fluke was the only "witness" called.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 02:05 PM
Common mistake. Fluke didn't appear before a congressional committee. She tried to appear at a congressional committee but was not allowed to testify. She actually appeared at a "hearing" set up by Pelosi in the Cannon Building (ever hear of it? Me neither). Fluke was the only "witness" called.

If you mean you've never heard of the Cannon building, you're missing a big chunk of American history. The major House office buildings are the Rayburn, Cannon, and Longworth buildings, all named for influential Speakers of the House.

Odysseus
03-15-2012, 02:12 PM
Didn't this Fluke woman make herself a public figure by appearing before a congressional committee?

She made herself a public figure by speaking out publicly. She didn't appear before a congressional committee, she appeared in a hearing room that the Democrats took over in order to present the illusion of committee testimony after the committee wouldn't allow them to substitute her for the speaker that had been agreed upon by all parties. It was pure theater, and that makes her an actor.

Also, the legal requirements for proving libel are that the person making the libel must know that the statement is false (or act with reckless disregard for the truth, i.e., present something without bothering to check if it were true), must have made the statement with malicious intent and must have caused damages. This last is critical, because libel and slander are not crimes, but tortes, and can only be redressed through civil law.

Rush's comments were based on Fluke's own statements to the press. If they were true, then his were correct.
Rush's comments were meant to expose the falsity of Fluke's statements. There is no proof of personal malice.
The controversy has elevated Fluke's standing from an obscure activist to a cause celebre. There have been no damages, unless a woman who speaks openly before news cameras about spending $1,000 per year on birth control is suddenly concerned about her sexual reputation.

There is no cause of action. If anything, Maher's comments are more actionable, as his statements about Palin were clearly defamatory and malicious.

Lanie
03-15-2012, 03:36 PM
(Politico) (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html) — Bill Maher, who has attracted fresh criticism for past comments about Sarah Palin in the aftermath of Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a “slut,” said in an interview that comparing his use of the “c word” to the radio host’s controversial remarks is “ridiculous.”


“To compare that to Rush is ridiculous – he went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves,” Maher told Jake Tapper of ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/). “I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican.’ Sarah Barracuda.”


Maher added, “The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”


Palin described the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s remarks as “the definition of hypocrisy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73706.html),” charging that plenty of “leftist radicals” are never held accountable for their name-calling, while Maher was similarly blasted by the radio personality on the air.


“You won’t get apologies from people like Bill Maher or all the other leftists who have said some of the most horrible, despicable things about us, and people like Sarah Palin,” Limbaugh said earlier in the month.


Maher, who recently made headlines for donating $1 million (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/maher-defends-million-obama-super-pac-donation-115728.html)to President Barack Obama’s super PAC, told Tapper that his comedy routine that referred to Palin as a “c—t” drew “one of the biggest laughs,” and that “not one person ever registered disapproval.”


Keep reading… (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74052.html)

And this is the reason I refuse to get HBO at home. I refuse to help fund idiots like this ass.



Bill Maher is so ignorant. The first amendment applies to everybody, not just to insulting politicians. Libel laws protect everybody. While politicians get less protection, they do have the right to sue somebody for defamation of character. If the jury is convinced that the accused is wrong, then damages can be awarded.

I've never heard of Palin directly calling a liberal a terrorist or whatever. If she did, then she's in the wrong as well.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. Say "I said it. I'm sorry. I am not making excuses for my behavior" or say "Yeah I said it, and I meant it" without being a hypocrite and pointing at somebody else.

Lanie
03-15-2012, 03:37 PM
Same here. Every once in a while, the cable company will call up and ask if I'd like this or that bundle with movie channels, and every time I ask if HBO is one of the channels. "Yes." "Then the answer is not just no, but hell no. so long as that dickhead Maher is on that network, I will not give them one red cent. *click*"

Bill Maher sucks, but HBO isn't just about him. There are more important things than Bill Maher. True Blood for example. I'm not giving up Alexander Skarsgard to stick it to Bill Maher. Nope. Sorry. lol.

Odysseus
03-15-2012, 03:52 PM
Bill Maher sucks, but HBO isn't just about him. There are more important things than Bill Maher. True Blood for example. I'm not giving up Alexander Skarsgard to stick it to Bill Maher. Nope. Sorry. lol.

Just buy the DVDs.

wannaberocker
03-15-2012, 04:21 PM
Maher is an ignorant little man.

wannaberocker
03-15-2012, 04:25 PM
Bill Maher is so ignorant. The first amendment applies to everybody, not just to insulting politicians. Libel laws protect everybody. While politicians get less protection, they do have the right to sue somebody for defamation of character. If the jury is convinced that the accused is wrong, then damages can be awarded.

I've never heard of Palin directly calling a liberal a terrorist or whatever. If she did, then she's in the wrong as well.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. Say "I said it. I'm sorry. I am not making excuses for my behavior" or say "Yeah I said it, and I meant it" without being a hypocrite and pointing at somebody else.

You are right Lanie. I cant think of a famous person sueing and winning a Libel case in the USA. But i remember a few years back, then manchester United player Ronaldo sued a newspaper for saying that he was out drinking the night before a game. He won the case because the newspaper was wrong because Ronaldo has a condition and so he does not drink Alcohol.

linda22003
03-15-2012, 04:46 PM
You are right Lanie. I cant think of a famous person sueing and winning a Libel case in the USA.

Didn't Carol Burnett win her case against the National Enquirer?

Starbuck
03-15-2012, 04:49 PM
If you mean you've never heard of the Cannon building, you're missing a big chunk of American history. The major House office buildings are the Rayburn, Cannon, and Longworth buildings, all named for influential Speakers of the House.

Never heard of it or him. Never heard of Longworth, either. Rayburn? OK.
Not the point, of course. The point is Fluke did not testify before a congressional committee.

But Sandra Fluke didn't testify before a legitimate congressional committee hearing. As noted by CBS News senior political producer Jill Jackson On February 23:

Led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats held a pretend hearing while Congress is not in session to listen to the views of a third-year Georgetown Law student and activist who was not allowed to attend a Republican run hearing on the matter last week.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2012/03/07/clarence-page-falsely-asserts-fluke-appeared-congressional-committee-hea#ixzz1pDUMR8YL

AmPat
03-15-2012, 04:53 PM
Hey Bill Sewer, I bet you would never invite Todd Palin onto your stupid show and defend your stupidity. Please show us how brave you are and do this, it would be the first time I ever watched your worthless act.

Lanie
03-15-2012, 05:09 PM
Just buy the DVDs.

I have some of them. It takes a year to get this year's on DVD.


Hey, I went on Bill Maher's Facebook page just to tell him off once. Then I found
people agreeing with me in the thread. lol.

Lager
03-15-2012, 05:15 PM
Maher is just an idiot with little talent who somehow happened to become well paid for it. He's an angry, sour man with a chip on his shoulder. He is however becoming the mouth piece for many that share his attitude, and most of those call themselves progressive. This is where the democratic party is heading to, or at least where a lot of the loudest voices want to push it toward. It fits in perfectly with Obama's plans. Seems he's decided he's going to run against the republican party, rather than a specific republican candidate. That was the purpose of his ad against Palin, and his remarks the other day about republicans being the "flat earth" types.

Odysseus
03-15-2012, 05:26 PM
Didn't Carol Burnett win her case against the National Enquirer?

Yep:

Burnett drew attention in 1981 when she sued the tabloid newspaper National Enquirer for libel after the Enquirer described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case, Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc., was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal. She donated a portion of that award to the University of Hawaii and University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, saying she hoped the suit would teach aspiring journalists the dangers of defaming individuals in articles. The money was used to fund Law and Ethics courses at the school. Burnett said at the time that she didn't care if she just won "cab fare", and that the lawsuit was a matter of principle.

Clearly, the contribution failed to teach journalists anything. She'd have been better of donating it to a legal fund for victims of journalistic abuse.

The article at Wikipedia points out a few interesting things about California's libel and defamation laws:


California law specifies that a "newspaper" is protected from all non-economic damages for libel if it publishes a retraction equally conspicuous to the original offending article. The Enquirer published a short retraction in April 1976, saying that


“ An item in this column on March 2 erroneously reported that Carol Burnett had an argument with Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant and became boisterous, disturbing other guests. We understand these events did not occur and we are sorry for any embarrassment our report may have caused Miss Burnett. ”

The retraction proved unsatisfactory to Burnett, who went on to sue the Enquirer for libel in Los Angeles Superior Court. Because Burnett was judged to be a public figure under the standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, she was required to prove "actual malice" --i.e. that the defendant published the item either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false—on the part of the Enquirer by "clear and convincing evidence". During the trial, it became apparent that the Enquirer had published the story on the basis of the account of a paid informant, Couri Hays. Hays had told the Enquirer that Burnett had taken her souffle around the restaurant in a boisterous manner, but that she was emphatically not drunk. He had not said anything about Kissinger. An Enquirer reporter had attempted to verify the story but had discovered nothing other than that Burnett had shared her souffle and had conversed with Kissinger. Despite this, it had published the story.

California law specifies that punitive damages can be awarded only if an item is published with "actual malice", defined as " that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice." The trial court instructed the jury that it had to find this "actual malice" (as defined in California state law) "by a preponderance of the evidence" in order to award punitive damages.

The jury awarded Burnett $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced this to $50,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages.

The Enquirer subsequently appealed on four grounds:


that the jury had been incorrectly instructed on the grounds on which it could award punitive damages: specifically that it should have been required to find actual malice (as defined in California state law) by "clear and convincing evidence"
that it should have been protected from noneconomic damages because it had published a retraction
that members of the jury pool had been tainted because they had been exposed to a "tirade" by Johnny Carson against the Enquirer
that the punitive damages were excessive.

Judgment
The Court of Appeal ruled against the Enquirer on its first three arguments. The Court distinguished the standard of "actual malice" defined by New York Times vs. Sullivan, which does have to be proved by "clear and convincing evidence" from that required by California state law for the imposition of punitive damages, which need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the Court found that the National Enquirer did not qualify as a "newspaper" under California libel law, and was thus not protected by the fact that it had issued a retraction.[1]

The Court did find in the Enquirer′s favor on the final argument. It found that the award constituted nearly 35% of The Enquirer′s net value, and reduced the punitive damages to $150,000.

MeneTekelParsin
03-18-2012, 01:04 AM
Same here. Every once in a while, the cable company will call up and ask if I'd like this or that bundle with movie channels, and every time I ask if HBO is one of the channels. "Yes." "Then the answer is not just no, but hell no. so long as that dickhead Maher is on that network, I will not give them one red cent. *click*"

HBO stands for Helping Barack Obama

Rockntractor
03-18-2012, 01:12 AM
HBO stands for Helping Barack Obama

Clever!http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/agreement/agreement007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

NJCardFan
03-18-2012, 02:26 AM
HBO stands for Helping Barack Obama

HBO is run by a bunch of liberal shills. There was an inmate at Northern State Prison in Newark, NJ by the name of Omar Broadway. Broadway is a gang banger from Jersey City who was housed in a now no longer around housing unit called STGMU which stood for Security Threat Group Management Unit. In short, the gang unit. Broadway is a Blood and a high ranking Blood at that. And thanks to the help of a dirty C.O. he obtained a video camera(among other things) to film the "horrors" of prison life. I've seen it. It's a joke. The bigger joke is that he tried to get everyone from Jesse Jackson to Al Sharpton to 50 Cent to get the thing produced and no one, and I do mean no one, answered him back. Eventually his mother(who was so proud of her son) found some indy person to make DVD's for her to sell and she sold maybe 10. With all of that HBO gives him a platform by putting it on their On Demand menu.

Elspeth
03-18-2012, 03:15 AM
She made herself a public figure by speaking out publicly.

Odysseus,

Do you know how many regular people testify in front of Congressional committees? (The answer is "lots") I know very boring civil servants who just happen to have done studies or projects for the government who get dragged in to testify (usually as second string, behind the brass). These people are not agreeing to be public figures. They are doing their civic duty and their Federal jobs by testifying.

Also, there are countless other regular people: people who work for military contractors and have to defend faulty equipment (most of which does not make the evening news); activists from causes as diverse as The Mothers Against Drunk Driving to wealthy residents of Prince William County who didn't want Disney putting in a theme park over their horse farms; and lots of regular people whose communities are experiencing high cancer rates and cannot get redress, or people who are victims of various scams which need action at the Federal level.

Most people who testify are not there to be celebrities, but to be active in getting change to happen. Ms. Fluck seems to fit into this group. I know there has been some speculation that she was a Democratic activist, but she was certainly no celebrity before the hearing. If a pro-life activist had been called to testify, and was not a household name, she would also not be a celebrity.

What's the difference? The social rules (and sometimes legal ones) are different for celebrities. Palin and Ingraham are celebrities. So was Nancy Pelosi when Glenn Beck acted out her fake murder. Celebrities have to take verbal beatings, (unless of course there is deliberate fabrication). It happens on both sides of the political aisle and, certainly, through Hollywood. Think of the names Patricia Heaton has been called for being a pro-life conservative. (Awful names have appeared on DU and on blogs). Think of every rotten thing that has been said about Snookie (though God knows she deserves it) or about Jay Leno (after the Conan debacle).

Being a celebrity means you have to take the heat. Being a regular person means you should be able to testify to your government without being abused. Otherwise, people on both sides of the aisle will stop coming forward because they will be afraid.

And, BTW, Maher is a piece of crap.

Hawkgirl
03-18-2012, 04:15 AM
Hey Bill, what is so "progressive" about calling a lady, a married woman, a former Governor of state, a C***T?

Odysseus
03-18-2012, 11:40 AM
Odysseus,

Do you know how many regular people testify in front of Congressional committees? (The answer is "lots") I know very boring civil servants who just happen to have done studies or projects for the government who get dragged in to testify (usually as second string, behind the brass). These people are not agreeing to be public figures. They are doing their civic duty and their Federal jobs by testifying.

She wasn't testifying in front of the committee. The committee wouldn't accept her as a witness. It was a staged press conference in a hearing room that they pretended was committee testimony. She wasn't under oath, or under any obligation to tell the truth, which is why she spun that load of BS. She wasn't doing her civic duty, she was acting for the cameras. The Democrats wanted to make her the poster child for birth control, and now they are upset that somebody drew a mustache on the poster.

BTW, Issa ought to bring her in for testimony and get her to say the same things under oath. Then, she'd have to document exactly how she spent $3k on birth control or face perjury charges.



Hey Bill, what is so "progressive" about calling a lady, a married woman, a former Governor of state, a C***T?

Progressives are highly misogynistic. Clinton treated the women around him like toys (or, in one case, a humidor). Teddy Kennedy drowned one, and he and Chris Dodd were notorious for an incident (http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/2005/08/kennedy-dodd-waitress-sandwich.html) in which they got drunk in a restaurant and tossed a waitress back and forth. Progressives treat individuals like eggs to be broken for the omelet that never actually feeds anyone, and women, being more easily exploited, get broken more often.

Novaheart
03-18-2012, 12:59 PM
I never thought of Palin as a cword and can't imagine how Maher would. The cword implies a level of angry malevolent bitch that Palin simply doesn't rise to. I thought of Palin as a twit.

Odysseus
03-18-2012, 03:38 PM
I never thought of Palin as a cword and can't imagine how Maher would. The cword implies a level of angry malevolent bitch that Palin simply doesn't rise to. I thought of Palin as a twit.

Fortunately, she won't lose much sleep over your opinion of her.

NJCardFan
03-18-2012, 11:34 PM
I never thought of Palin as a cword and can't imagine how Maher would. The cword implies a level of angry malevolent bitch that Palin simply doesn't rise to. I thought of Palin as a twit.
Yeah, so many twits out there becoming governor. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
03-19-2012, 12:57 AM
Yeah, so many twits out there becoming governor. :rolleyes:


Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Rick Perry

Odysseus
03-19-2012, 01:56 AM
Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Rick Perry

I can't comment on Ventura, but having lived in CA and TX, I can say that Perry has been a great governor, and that anyone stupid enough to vote for Brown deserves to live in CA.

NJCardFan
03-19-2012, 02:44 AM
Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Rick Perry

Tell you what, pick any of those 4 and have a one on one debate on any subject and we'll see who the twit is.

Retread
03-19-2012, 09:03 PM
I never thought of Palin as a cword and can't imagine how Maher would. The cword implies a level of angry malevolent bitch that Palin simply doesn't rise to. I thought of Palin as a twit.

That's good cause she won't think of you at all.