OK, so what's all this about? No doubt 'Fair and Balanced' is a running joke, but surely the plaintiffs' lawyers must have warned them that this is a non-starter. Are they just grandstanding? Guys, do we really need more frivolous lawsuits in a political year which is already embarrassingly jejune?
Posted by Alan Allport at July 20, 2004 07:22 AMIs there a problem with frivolous lawsuits lately? I wasn't aware that there was, notwithstanding the reports of astroturf front groups. Seems to be a reasonable summary of the issue here, though I haven't had time to read through it all. (Note that this is a "trial advocacy" organization. Best I could find in a hurry.)
Posted by: Alan Hogue at July 20, 2004 12:59 PMIs there a problem with frivolous lawsuits lately?
Well, I was referencing Fox's foolish attempt to shut down Al Franken's book last year. I suppose MoveOn.org et al could argue the they started it defense, but I still think this kind of showboat lawsuit is counterproductive.
Posted by: Alan at July 20, 2004 01:46 PMI think people are mad, desperate and perceive themselves as powerless, and when people are mad, desperate and perceive themselves as powerless, they'll use whatever means it takes, including frivolous lawsuits. And after watching ten minutes of Fox News when I visited Pittsburgh, I can sympathize with how powerless one feels in the midst 24/7 all right-wing, all the time. But I can't imagine how a futile nuisance lawsuit might be all that empowering, except to contribute to the smug self-satisfaction of both parties...
Posted by: Graeme Burk at July 20, 2004 02:02 PMTo correct a possible false impression, we are still allowed to turn off the Fox channel, and in fact are permitted not to subscribe to cable TV at all. But Graeme has a point. This may be obvious, but lawsuits are evidence that a conversation is broken to the point where nothing short of a lawsuit can settle it.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at July 20, 2004 07:33 PMSo what do you think of this one? (No clear opinion in my own mind but it seemed relevant.)
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at July 21, 2004 10:39 AMDunno really. I suppose it depends on whether clearchannelsucks was really a 'protest site' or just a front for a rival company, but I didn't really have the patience to wade through all the legalese.
Posted by: Alan Allport at July 21, 2004 10:46 AMHere's another one.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at July 21, 2004 06:12 PM