 |
|
LOL, so NYT is making the same argument in defending
Posted on: March 25, 2021 at 15:58:14 CT
MUTGR MU
Posts:
68843
Member For:
24.81 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
libel suits against it that Sydney Powell is using to defend herself in the Dominion lawsuit: that the statements she made were really opinion and not statements of fact:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/25/nyts_libel_defense_no_need_for_opinionfact_labeling_145476.html
"The Times’ responded to the defamation suit by asking for it to be dismissed on multiple grounds, including the notion that some of the most damning accusations the paper leveled at Project Veritas in its news stories were really matters of opinion. “In part, Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as ‘deceptive,’ ‘false,’ and ‘without evidence’ were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false,” observes Wood in his opinion rejecting the motion for dismissal.
This isn’t the first time the paper has defended potentially defamatory reporting by claiming it is opinion ex post facto. The Times employed this defense successfully in federal court last year. In Peter Brimelow v. The New York Times Company, it was sued for calling an editor at VDARE, an immigration website accused of publishing racist material, an “open white nationalist” before stealth editing the article to merely calling him a “white nationalist.” Brimelow denies he’s a white nationalist.
The judge in that case, Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York, noted the news outlet’s defense of its description of Brimelow was that the term “constitute[s] nonactionable statements of opinion rather than false statements of fact.”"
I'm guessing it is okay when it is the NYT doing it, but not when Powell is making the same argument:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17507143
Edited by MUTGR at 16:00:22 on 03/25/21
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/25/nyts_libel_defense_no_need_for_opinionfact_labeling_145476.html
"The Times’ responded to the defamation suit by asking for it to be dismissed on multiple grounds, including the notion that some of the most damning accusations the paper leveled at Project Veritas in its news stories were really matters of opinion. “In part, Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as ‘deceptive,’ ‘false,’ and ‘without evidence’ were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false,” observes Wood in his opinion rejecting the motion for dismissal.
This isn’t the first time the paper has defended potentially defamatory reporting by claiming it is opinion ex post facto. The Times employed this defense successfully in federal court last year. In Peter Brimelow v. The New York Times Company, it was sued for calling an editor at VDARE, an immigration website accused of publishing racist material, an “open white nationalist” before stealth editing the article to merely calling him a “white nationalist.” Brimelow denies he’s a white nationalist.
The judge in that case, Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York, noted the news outlet’s defense of its description of Brimelow was that the term “constitute[s] nonactionable statements of opinion rather than false statements of fact.”"
I'm guessing it is okay when it is the NYT doing it, but not when Powell is making the same argument:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17507143
Edited by MUTGR at 16:00:22 on 03/25/21
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
LOL, so NYT is making the same argument in defending - MUTGR MU - 3/25 15:58:14