SCOTUS today denied cert to a West Virginia coal baron, convicted in the deaths of 29 miners. His feelings were hurt when news media orgs referred to him as a “convicted felon.”
Actually, the deaths of 29 miners was just a misdemeanour, so he sued the news orgs for defamation. He blamed them for his loss in the 2018 GOP Senate primary.
Obviously, if the coal miners of West Virginia and their families and communities had been told the deaths of 29 miners was only a misdemeanour, that would have voted in droves for Mr Blakenship. It was the “felon” tag that turned them off, not the 29 deaths.
Lower courts dismissed his action, saying there was no evidence of actual malice, which is the standard required to show a public figure has been defamed.
SCOTUS unanimously dismissed his cert application, although Thomas and Gorsuch did allow as how they thought the “actual malice” standard needed re-examination; but not in this case.
I’m just surprised that he lost his West Virginia Senate run. After all, as I always say, if you can’t trust a climate-change-denying West Virginia coal baron who consistently has reckless disregard for the lives of his miners, then who can you trust?
Blankenship is among the most reprehensible figures that ever crawled out for under a rock into the darkest realms of American politics.
I would support the idea that the media should be liable for any factual inaccuracies, regardless of whether the person in the featured story is a scumbag or not.
That’s not what defamation law is about. It’s not about factual inaccuracies, pure and simple; it’s whether the person’s reputation has been harmed by the erroneous report.
My opinion, as stated in the OP, is that his reputation would take a hit for the deaths of 29 miners, regardless how the criminal proceeding sorted itself out.
He got a year in jail for the 29 deaths; I don’t think the average citizen would say, “But he’s a good guy; it was only a misdemeanour.”
In some jurisdictions, there’s also a grace period for the media to correct a factual error, and if they do so, the action for defamation disappears. Don’t know if that was part of the legal issues here.
What the judges call “the sting” of the statement was true - he was convicted of safety violations that resulted in 29 deaths. The detail of what crime that is (felony or misdemeanor) is less important.
“Well, if it’s a crime to love one’s country, then I’m guilty. And if it’s a crime to cause the death of 29 miners, then I’m guilty of that too. And if it’s a crime to bribe a jury, then so help me, I’ll soon be guilty of that!”
