The Blaze posted a story earlier this week about an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune by an “art historian and educator” named Alexandra Karl, which has Glenn Beck so disturbed that he’s discussing taking legal action.
The piece, reviewing Beck’s “Independence Through History” museum, was full of inaccuracies and gets into defamation territory. Here’s what some Blaze readers had to say about the issue:
Just because the author of this article is a descendant of a Holocaust victim doesn’t give her the right to make defamatory statements about Beck. He doesn’t own this stuff as the writer claimed he just displayed it at his event. That alone is cause for legal action. If Beck owned this Nazi stuff it would be different, but he doesn’t. Clearly this is defamation of character: 1) she knew for a fact he didn’t own these objects and 2) her statements harmed Beck’s reputation. He’s got a case and he should pursue it through legal channels and sue this so called “descendant of a Jewish victim of the Holocaust” (that’s probably a lie too) to the fullest extent of the law.
It’s really black and white. She said he owned these Nazi collection items, and he doesn’t. Somebody else does. Legally that’s defamation of character.
Beck’s comparisons of Obama to Hitler and liberals to Nazis, on the other hand, is well founded in both history and advanced education and common sense. To my knowledge he’s never claimed in a single instance that any liberal or Democrat owned any Nazi memorabilia.
Those are kind of strange things to collect and display. I know someone that collects things like this and he rationalizes his collection to be just historic, but the truth is, he just likes to own rare things with a dark history. Just like I think it would be strange if a conservative collected things with Obama’s signature or drops of his blood. I think I could keep history accurate and useful without preserving these items.
Even though I in no way agree with her statements, I do not believe suing is the correct path to take. In today’s society, it is common for someone to take legal action if they are offended. I believe in this case she went further than just offending Glenn, but we have the chance to be the better men here.
Instead of looking at her with hatred, we should forgive her. Whether or not she learns from her mistakes is entirely in her hands, but there will come a time when she will be held accountable.
She has a first amendment right to voice her opinion, or are we forgetting the Constitution? So we don’t agree with her…big deal. Never forget we are fighting for the Constitution, and it covers them as well, so this article is disturbing to me. Beck says what he wants when and where he wants. This was an opinion piece, was it not? Legal action would be legal action against the U.S. Constitution. Don’t give her the time of day.
I was in Salt Lake for the Man In the Moon event and saw the exhibit. It was incredible and parts of it moved me to tears. God bless Beck for reminding us that evil like Hitler must never be allowed to happen again.
I believe legal action is called for, if only for the “Nazi sympathizer” part. Please do. Opinion is only opinion when it’s based on facts – and facts are not opinion. She missed so many facts and there are many who will read this and go no further but use it against you.
I hope Glenn feels the same as I do about this slander.
The author gave the impression that she wrote a review for a function she attended.
Apparently her intent was to harm Glenn.
A common tool which most liberals use is deceit.
There is legal recourse which Glenn can and should use.
Turn it over to a conservative lawyer.
“More than 70 old, most of the detritus of Germany’s Nationalsozialisten was destroyed after the war and continue to be banned to this day.”
Demonstrably untrue. These things are normally in museums. The reason is so that people can see them and not forget that they happened. Most would prefer to forget the Nazis, but their stuff is kept to remind people of who these monsters were.
One wonders who this educator actually is. Some local college professor that hates Mr. Beck enough to lie about him?
True commentary is often unpleasant. That is its nature — to make us think about something that maybe we’d prefer not to. Commentary is necessary for the health of the nation. Commentary ceases to be commentary when you know what you are saying is untrue but say it anyway.
It’s one thing to call someone a National Socialist or Communist when they have adopted the basic ideology of Socialism as many in the Democratic party have. Almost the entire ten planks of the Communist Manifesto are in their dominant ideology. The policies of the DNC can be compared to the planks one by one.
It’s quite another thing to call someone a Nazi sympathizer who has been consistently against socialism like Mr. beck. If you compare what he says and does to the planks, he doesn’t ascribe to them at all. It doesn’t fit.
The big problem is when to sue. Sometimes it’s better just to lump it. Perhaps the best idea is to do what TheBlaze did here and do a news article on it.
Editorials are merely opinions, individual points of view, so this person can say what she wants. Granted, it would have been nice if she got the name and location correct, and maybe indicate she didn’t actually attend, but that is asking for a little too much honesty for a ‘drive-by’ character assassination piece. Further, Mr. Beck is a ‘public figure’ and the standard to prove defamation and the like is higher than for the general population, so I doubt this will go anywhere.
Glenn should not sue; instead he should invite the woman to a televised debate and challenge her position and claims. Glenn should look at this as an opportunity to present an alternative thought not bound up in the dialectic. I would make it a huge event so the audience would be enormous. This woman and her Sophists doctoral-based alliance can face off against Mr Beck and his Christian doctoral-based alliance and Americans can make their own minds up as to which pathway is best.
Too many times Americans spend their time being drawn into the battle in order to crush the perceived opponent. However isn’t this the battle of ideas that Glenn is always discussing? The woman has an opinion, not one that I particularly agree with but an opinion nonetheless. Let her defend her position openly and publicly. A public flogging via the court system could turn out to be a sour event; however a public display of two vastly different opinions could actually get people thinking about what they believe. Further it would be a chance for Glenn to display the workings and deception of applied dialectics, which is the tool the Democratic Marxists use on the public to deceive them. I am willing to chip in for the debate to be brought public…who else is willing to chip in?
I just read Karl’s piece twice; there is not a single actionable statement in the entire opinion piece. To even suggest there is a libel or slander claim suggests you only want to stir controversy.
She is not a fireable employee; this is a citizen who wrote about a display she was offended by. I too find Beck’s collection bizarre and displaying Anne Frank with Adolf Hitler is never going to be tasteful.
Beck has every right to display whatever bizarre artifacts he wants and Alexandra has ever right to be critical of his public display. Nothing will ever be filed, lawsuit talk is just so much bloviating.
This can be done – or, at least initiated – quite easily and reasonably. Glenn should have his legal team write a letter to the author and/or paper detailing what was wrong and defamatory in the article and how it clearly left the impression the Glenn is a Nazi sympathizer. Respectfully ask for an apology and a correction to the errors in the article, plus an admission by Karl that she did not attend the event. Indicate a date when Glenn expects to see that. Be reasonable – something like 9/30 or other date. Should no apology, correction, retraction or response to letter happen, the letter should indicate that Glenn intends to seek a correction to the article and an apology by way of an lawsuit of an undetermined amount. Should no apology, correction, retraction or response to the letter occur – all the better, because it would indicate that both the Salt Lake Tribune and Karl are indifferent to Beck, and therefore hostile to Beck. This should be done “under the radar” with no fanfare. However, at the end of the day, this is sort of a “hill to die on.” This is a reverse case of the ACLU threatening to sue a small community for displaying a Nativity Scene. The small community relents rather than go through the expense of defending themselves in a suit. Just a thought, anyway.
It doesn’t surprise me that the Salt Lake Tribune would publish trash like this. Because their main local competition is a newspaper (Deseret News) owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), they have positioned themselves as opposing the Church in nearly every way, and their editorial board will speak negatively about anything that is connected to it, even remotely (Beck is Mormon). Even their “straight news” stories are tainted with this bias.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid or uneducated it may be. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with it or even acknowledge it. As for the paper printing it and giving her a forum…they have been doing that for decades. Just think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party and so on. It doesn’t do much for the paper’s credibility I’ll admit, but they still do it and anyone that says they shouldn’t will get lectured on the 1st Amendment.