I may be missing something here, but what grounds would Rogan have for suing CNN? For making fun of him, a political adversary? He's a public figure, after all. And doesn't he delight in ridiculing their lineup of left wing nitwits? Fair is fair . . . let 100 flowers bloom!
Jake - CNN knowingly lied about Rogan repeatedly saying he was taking horse dewormers when they knew he was taking a physician prescribed Ivermectin (and other things). It meets the definition of libel and slander. It was malice aforethought meant to demean Rogan and his character.
A news organization is supposed to report the news. Not make it up.
I agree completely with your last point, but we all know that CNN is not impartial and never has been. (I remember them slanting the news 30 years ago to suck up to Saddam Hussein.) As to whether their statements re Rogan are actionable, though . . . well, I respectfully disagree. Ivermectin, at least a version of it, is in fact used as a horse dewormer, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that would be a reasonable defense, even though they are obviously being snotty to someone they despise. And I believe the libel/slander bar is set higher for public figures, anyway. I'd hate to have to worry about being sued just because I like to refer to our beloved president as a senile, child-molesting pervert.
Most people aren't aware that CNN literally paid Saddam Hussein for "access" and had to slant their reporting accordingly to keep that access. Who else are they paying for access today?
When it comes to Rogan - you are probably right. It can be used as a horse dewormer in much higher doses. So they might be able to claim a technicality on that but imagine what could come out in discovery. That alone would be worth the lawsuit.
I may be missing something here, but what grounds would Rogan have for suing CNN? For making fun of him, a political adversary? He's a public figure, after all. And doesn't he delight in ridiculing their lineup of left wing nitwits? Fair is fair . . . let 100 flowers bloom!
Jake - CNN knowingly lied about Rogan repeatedly saying he was taking horse dewormers when they knew he was taking a physician prescribed Ivermectin (and other things). It meets the definition of libel and slander. It was malice aforethought meant to demean Rogan and his character.
A news organization is supposed to report the news. Not make it up.
I agree completely with your last point, but we all know that CNN is not impartial and never has been. (I remember them slanting the news 30 years ago to suck up to Saddam Hussein.) As to whether their statements re Rogan are actionable, though . . . well, I respectfully disagree. Ivermectin, at least a version of it, is in fact used as a horse dewormer, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer but I suspect that would be a reasonable defense, even though they are obviously being snotty to someone they despise. And I believe the libel/slander bar is set higher for public figures, anyway. I'd hate to have to worry about being sued just because I like to refer to our beloved president as a senile, child-molesting pervert.
Most people aren't aware that CNN literally paid Saddam Hussein for "access" and had to slant their reporting accordingly to keep that access. Who else are they paying for access today?
When it comes to Rogan - you are probably right. It can be used as a horse dewormer in much higher doses. So they might be able to claim a technicality on that but imagine what could come out in discovery. That alone would be worth the lawsuit.