Article

2019-03-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

The Covington Catholic Case Could Turn on ‘Actual Malice'

[TheAtlantic] Nicholas sandmann was an ordinary 16-year-old student at Covington Catholic High School, a school for boys in northern Kentucky, when he found himself standing at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial on January 18. He was wearing a red make america great again hat that he’d purchased as a souvenir, and standing face to face with a Native American protester named Nathan Phillips. Sandmann smiled at Phillips, who was beating a drum.

Sandmann is now suing The Washington Post for $250 million in damages in the wake of a furious national debate over alleged anti‐Donald Trump media bias that quickly became an object lesson in the perils of social media and the limits of objective truth without independent, on-the-ground reporting.

Sandmann’s suit claims that the Post’s linking to a viral video of him and Phillips, and its focus on his maga hat and a "relentless smirk," were "negligent, reckless, and malicious attacks ... which caused permanent damage to [Sandmann’s] life and reputation."

To win his lawsuit, Sandmann must demonstrate that what was written about him was false. He will face what Kristine Coratti Kelly, a spokesperson for the Post, told me would be "a vigorous defense." The newspaper has not yet filed a response to the suit, but it published an editor’s note on March 1 saying that its first story has been contradicted by subsequent reporting.

Sandmann’s case may turn on whether the "actual malice" standard established by the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan applies. The key question here for a judge to decide could be whether Sandmann is considered a public figure, with a much higher burden of proof, or a private one‐just another high-school student who, through no fault of his own, found himself in a maelstrom. The experts are divided over how that’s likely to be decided.
This is a long article about the legal ins and outs of the case. I still think Bezos should have to fork over billions but, unsurprisingly, lawyers think it's complicated. RTWT

Posted by Abu Uluque 2019-03-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Ah, the lawyers are once more claiming journalists can commit libel and slander with impunity, because the moment they do the target becomes a "public figure".

Posted by Rob Crawford 2019-03-11 07:08|| 2019-03-11 07:08|| Front Page Top

#2 If the defense is lack of actual malice, then it would seem to me that the kid's lawyers get to depose the reporters and editors (and owners) on how reporting decisions are made and what the attitudes of the reporters etc. are. We already know the answers, but buckets of popcorn there.

Posted by Matt 2019-03-11 09:27|| 2019-03-11 09:27|| Front Page Top

#3 Of course lawyers think it's complicated, that's what they get paid to do. Since the kid was not a pre-existing public figure and was essentially made one by their creation, the case would seem to hinge on the lack of appropriate due diligence in reporting. The question will then be whether that rises to the level of malice through overt negligence. Now any lawyer who would so much as contemplate summarizing a 9 figure case in a paragraph would be disbarred or shot, maybe both.

Posted by Cesare 2019-03-11 10:00|| 2019-03-11 10:00|| Front Page Top

#4 The courts have spent the last 40 years expanding the equal protection before the law and due process of the 14th Amendment into a super highway of power. Now they are about to crap on themselves building a pretzel of a rationale why there are 'public' and 'private' status in libel. The first amendment is not recourse to excuse wanton and reckless behavior of corporations.

Posted by Procopius2k 2019-03-11 10:43|| 2019-03-11 10:43|| Front Page Top

#5 The Media will have a real problem, do they cover the depositions themselves or they hope nobody pays attention as the appear on "alternative" media and reduce their all ready low influence on public opinion. Robot reporters are standing ready to uh report.

Posted by Snavimble Bucket1794 2019-03-11 12:20|| 2019-03-11 12:20|| Front Page Top

#6 So if it wasn't malice, then what was it? Overlooked incompetence and stupidity that crept into the system that transects several levels of management, fact checkers and reporting protocols which will magically be easily "corrected and implemented" in a couple of days now that is has been pointed out?

Posted by gorb 2019-03-11 15:31|| 2019-03-11 15:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Malice is not applicable unless its a public figure. The law is pretty clear about that - it only needs to be objectively untruthful and harm to the person or their reputation. Malice enters only when its a public figure. I rather doubt this kid was a public figure before the libel/slander event.

Claiming that this kid is a public figure because their actions in libeling him made him a public figure is about like the kid that murdered his parents saying he shouldn't be charged because he is now orphan.

If they are trying to shelter behind "absence of malice", they're dead meat.

Posted by Vespasian Unairt7733 2019-03-11 22:17|| 2019-03-11 22:17|| Front Page Top

23:09 Chuck M
22:57 SteveS
22:52 SteveS
22:26 DarthVader
22:21 Skidmark
22:18 Skidmark
22:06 SteveS
22:02 Pancho Poodle8452
21:44 Skidmark
21:40 Skidmark
21:09 Airandee
20:42 Woodrow
20:19 swksvolFF
20:17 swksvolFF
18:46 Grom the Affective
18:40 DooDahMan
18:34 Frank G
18:25 Frank G
18:22 Grom the Affective
18:11 trailing wife
18:06 Hellfish
17:49 Grom the Affective
17:19 Abu Uluque
17:04 Abu Uluque