Rupert Murdoch has owned the New York Post for 37 years. It has been operating at a loss for that entire period. It’s not a newspaper, it’s a propaganda tool. It’s not journalism, it’s some rich fools blog.
I’m not sure libel is possible. Wouldn’t there need to be a general expectation that the Post was an actual news source?
No. Anybody can be sued for libel/slander, including a guy running a blog. It has nothing to do with whether or not the publisher/speaker is considered a news source.
Yeah, I know. That was meant tongue-in-cheek. I hope those two are awarded billions in damages.
Just because you read it in the NY Post doesn’t necessarily mean it was not true.
Well, what is the truth, isn’t it a bit like that Japanese movie Rush A Moon?
Besides, they clearly say that those weren’t the guys, so anybody who read the article and looked at the picture, if they see those two guys, they say “Hey! Those are the two guys who didn’t do it!”. And then turn their suspicions elsewhere.
Helped 'em out, New York style.
I understand that’s an actual issue when setting damages. If it can be shown that nobody takes the source seriously, damages are lower than if the source was reputable. IANAL.
The New York Post has an online presence though, and folks outside of the City aren’t always aware of their unreliability. For example, in 2011 Dominique Strauss-Kahn allegedly sexually assaulted a hotel maid. The New York Post reported (maliciously, IMO) that she was a hotel prostitute and many posters here believed them. Those who said, “NY Post: are you kidding?” were dismissed. Naturally the Post’s story fell apart and they were sued for libel. They settled the matter out of court after dragging the case out for a while.
Update: Sunil Tripathi’s body was pulled from the water on Tuesday. Cause of death as yet undetermined.
Well, yes. When you act like a smarmy asshole who can’t parse basic English, you get treated like that.
If Kimmy had just said “In my professional opinion, there is no case for libel. Here’s why […]” he would have been treated fine. But he decided to act like a know-it-all prick and ask non-lawyers to defend a legal case. He posted, like you do, with the goal of making himself look good and not, as you claim, fighting ignorance. If he’d wanted to fight ignorance, he’d have given us the information first.
So, yeah, people are going to take the most unfavorable interpretation. That’s how people work. You’ve given them a reason to be biased against you, and they will take it. If there’s any possible way you could be wrong, they will find it.
The funny thing is, that’s something trial lawyers do all the time. Yet all you can do about it here is whine about it. You’re a lawyer, you are professionally trained in arguing tactics. Yet you constantly lose these arguments.
Well, I’ll make you a deal … If non-lawyers refrain from rendering legal opinions, such as, “Hope the Post has a big war chest, 'cause they’re about to be cleaned out for libel,” then the lawyers will refrain from testing non-lawyer legal analyses (because those non-lawyers will not be engaging in any such analyses).
Otherwise, no dice.
Oh, OK. So this case is such an obvious loser, potential plaintiffs won’t be able to find a lawyer to take their side?
BigT is right, by the way.
That’s a prediction about a *settlement *of a suit or threatened suit, which is an event that’s related far more to human nature and financial prudence than to the letter of libel law. IOW it isn’t really a legal opinion in the sense you know it at all, now is it?
Yes, **BigT **is right about this combination of ego problem and bubble problem you share with your senior colleague Bricker, and occasionally others of your brethren.
How strange it is that, on a board ostensibly given over to fighting ignorance, one so often hears the complaint: It’s NOT FAIR that some people know more about some subjects than I do!!
The complaint is that some people are dicks.
Well, that sounds like a thoughtful critique. I will be sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.
Darn, I thought we were on the verge of a breakthrough.
Mind if I use this for my sig?
You’re out of order!
Kidding, obviously. But you seem to be missing the point Kimmy, which surprises me. I thought lawyers had a better grasp of rhetoric. Here’s an example. Newbie casual debaters think that the best way to debate is never to give an inch and argue against every point their opponent makes. But that opens them up to appearing ridiculous. And some of the most sophisticated techniques use verbal Judo. You concede one of their main points… then show that it really doesn’t matter. Or if you’re a liberal, you buttress your case with conservative websites (Reagan raised taxes!) and visa versa (Obama assassinates with drones!). Many Judo techniques, all with enhanced effectiveness.
In this instance you could have applied a soft sell approach. It would have made you look better, more professional, more knowledgeable. Just add a tad of empathy:
“You might think that the NY Post would be cleaned out, but actually libel cases are pretty hard to win in the US. In legal terms they have these 3 hurdles: A, B and C. Now A, I might grant you for the sake of argument. But B and C will be pretty tough. Here’s why…”
“Now sure you might think they should be cleaned out -personally I agree with the ACLU- but that’s a different matter.”
Whether BigT’s claim was correct is a separate matter. This is the pit after all.
Frankly,** Marley’s** comment is a more thoughtful critique than you deserve. I would’ve just said you’re an arrogant piece of shit.
So how does something like this play into it?
Is there no grey area here that is arguable? Can’t something be factual but still be “defamatory” when taken in context? There also appears to be a case called Mihalik vs Duprey where the court told the jury that truthful statements can be considered defamatory when taken in context, but IANAL and have no access to the actual case, and that may have not held up in higher courts.
Just spit-balling it. It just seems that in law, there’s always gray areas, and is it really that clear that this is not one of them? It does, however, seem to be an uphill battle with the wide berth first amendment rights are (rightfully, IMHO) given here in the US.
ETA: Put it this way, in my uninformed layman’s opinion, I can’t see the NY Post getting nailed for this. But is the law really that clear?