he doth protest too much

This musing is follow up to comments posted on The Erstwhile Conservative, Duane Graham’s ongoing contribution to Joplin area political dialogue.

Duane,

I’m curious as to whether or not Rush Limbaugh is serious when threatening to take legal action against those he feels have maliciously impugned his reputation. Limbaugh, who has made a fortune under the First Amendment’s wide protective net, is treading on thin ice when accusing critics of crossing the line.

The onus to prove criminal defamation is on the plaintiff. I find it hard to believe that after two decades of broadcasting racially insensitive remarks anyone would need to fabricate evidence of his congenital prejudice against minorities. Media Matters is just one website with myriad examples of the talk show host’s deleterious commentary.

Limbaugh’s defense when cornered on an especially intolerant remark is that he’s first and foremost a satirist. As an acknowledged expert in Limbaughnics, you know he has always played this card if caught exposing too much leg; it’s his perpetual enemies who don’t get the sophisticated drift because they’re blinded by liberal indoctrination. Of course, only like-minded conservatives have evolved beyond identity politics and are freed from bigotries divisive pull. He is merely using ‘humor’ to prove his point that it’s the Democrat Party that is obsessed with race. Why else would liberals bemoan such hilarity as “Barack the Magic Negro?”

Closer to the issue in question -- Limbaugh’s interest in buying a piece of the Rams -- was this ‘satirical' jibe he made in 2007: “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”

It’s strange that Al Michaels hasn’t stolen his brilliant quip. At least then Limbaugh could claim plagiarism.

Thinking about libel brought up memories of Oscar Wilde’s tragic case. Trevor Fisher's: Oscar and Bosie: A Fatal Passion is a fascinating read detailing the sad consequences when plaintiff becomes respondent. The upshot is that one should never sue when guilty of ‘slanderous’ accusations. Although Limbaugh’s behavior isn’t criminal (neither was Wilde’s: Victoria’s England shares striking similarities to Inhofe’s Oklahoma), losing in court wouldn’t be in the propagandist’s best interest -- how can one besmirch a reputation that doesn’t exist?

Juan Don