re: #83 kirkspencer

It’s Massachusetts, so it’s defamation per se - no damages have to be proven. All that’s required is to prove Beck said it.

Beck’s sole remaining defense is ‘truth’, and even there he’s got problems. Now in some states he could get away with ‘I believed it to be true’ as long as he can demonstrate reasonable diligence to ensure it was true before he said it. But in Massachusetts they had a case whereby even truth was insufficient if malice - actual or probable - was demonstrated.

Beck is a professional newscaster (don’t laugh) and as such is expected to know:
due diligence;
phrasing (use of the word ‘alleged’);
consequence of inflammatory language.

He’s going to pay a LOT for this. If he’s smart and a little lucky it’ll just be for the out of court settlement.

A question might be: Were Beck’s words malicious or could a lawyer argue they simply resulted from an excess of zeal in the nation’s defense?