While it has received little coverage in the mainstream media, the conservative group Project Veritas won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach. In a 16-page decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood ruled against the newspaper’s motion to dismiss and found that Project Veritas had shown sufficient evidence that the New York Times might have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu. The decision will allow the Project access to discovery which can be extremely difficult for a news organization.
The case came out of the highly divisive period of the civil rights movement. The New York Times had run an advertisement referring to abuses of civil rights marchers and the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. seven times. The Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued for defamation and won under Alabama law. He was awarded $500,000 — a huge judgment for the time. Sullivan’s lawsuit was one of a number of civil actions brought under state laws that targeted Northern media covering the violence against freedom marchers. The judgments represented a viable threat to both media and average citizens in criticizing our politicians.
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. The status imposes the higher standard first imposed in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, requiring a showing of “actual malice” where media had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.
In this case, Astor and Hsu were accused of libeling Project Veritas by stating their opinions as fact in the articles on video clips that purportedly showed illegal voting practices by campaign workers for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). One article by Astor on Sept. 29 was titled “Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say,” and reported how academic researchers found the video to be part of a “concerted disinformation campaign.” The article describes the project’s work as “deceptive.” Hsu followed up a month later with a story titled “Conservative News Sites Fuel Voter Fraud Misinformation” that again quoted academic experts in describing the work as “deceptive” and part of a “propaganda feedback loop.” Other articles follow a similar narrative.
The opinion is interesting because it calls out the New York Times for blurring the line between opinion and fact. It is a common complaint as major news media yield to the “echo chamber” model of journalism — appealing to the bias of readers or viewers in offering slanted coverage. The court calls out the newspaper for such blurring including this excerpt:
In a similar cycle, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by the conservative activist James O’Keefe. The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally (NYSCEF#8 and #9)
The issue is whether Project Veritas should be given a chance to prove it case and the court found that it should:
Actionable assertions of fact are tightly intertwined with what defendants now characterize as 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. However, if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion. The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video “deceptive”, but the dictionary definitions of “disinformation” and “deceptive” provided by defendants’ counsel (NYSCEF doc 14 at footnote 29), certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim. Likewise, Defendants now appear to assert that the promotion of the video was where the deception was (Astor affidavit NYSCEF doc 85, at paragraphs 8-9; Hsu affidavit NYSCEF doc 86 at paragraphs 7-8; Memorandum of Law NYSCEF doc 14, at pages 7-8, 11-12, 23, 28). But there is a difference between viewing a disappointing “fight of the century” and reporting that it was not worth the Pay per-View fee or did not live up to the hype, and reporting to the public that Pay-per-View knowingly marketed a fight that was fixed. Plaintiff is entitled to try to establish whether NYT’s writers were purposely and/or recklessly inaccurate, or whether they were inaccurate, sloppy, or something less.
Note that this is not a finding of actual malice but it will allow the Project to plunge into discovery, including depositions, and possible a trial.
The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times. The Second Circuit has played a significant role in this area as well due to its foundational 1975 opinion in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co., Inc. That case concerned a book My Life in the Mafia that accused the plaintiff, Robert L. Cardillo, of various crimes. Cardillo had a long record and was serving time in the federal penitentiary. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case because it “consider[ed] as a matter of law that appellant is, for purposes of this case, libel-proof.”
These are extremely rare rulings and, in my view, the use the defense in this case was a mistake. There is a tendency in litigation to throw everything at an opposing party and let the court sort it out. It may be cathartic but it can be costly. In this case, the newspaper likely lost credibility with the court and highlighted the alleged bias in claiming that this conservative investigative group has no reputation to lose. It is the type of claim that is highly unlikely to succeed but has a high likelihood of undermining other claims in the motion to dismiss.
In the end, the court finds that there is sufficient evidence of “actual malice” by The New York Times to proceed in the case:
The court finds that the documentary proof and the facts alleged by Veritas are sufficient to meet its burden. The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice. There is a substantial basis in law to proceed to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. Malice focuses on the defendant’s state of mind in relation to the truth or falsity of the published information. Here there is a substantial basis in law and fact that Defendants acted with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that the statements in the Articles were false or made with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. Veritas alleged actual malice by providing facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants’ alleged disregard for the truthfulness of its statements. Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, Veritas’ submissions were sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions, and further proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues raised.
“While there are some violent perpetrators who are white, conservative, or Trump supporters, FBI statistics suggest that most anti-Asian violence has come from black perpetrators. Refusing to look at these statistics represents a refusal to take seriously the lives and security of Asian Americans.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/anti-asian-violence-cant-be-blamed-on-trump-supporters
FBI statistics confirm. https://twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1372218202973999107
Blacks account for 27.5% of the violent incidents with Asian victims in the data Bevan cited, which is the same data I referred you to earlier.
Do you truly believe that 27.5% is “most”?
Look at Table 14 on Page 13 of the report. You probably have since you found the 27.5% figure.
Whites and Asians commit about the same number of assaults on Asians, about 24.1%
Blacks, men, for the most part who are only 7% of the total population but commit about 27.5% of the assaults on Asians.
It is a shockingly high percentage of assaults compared to their percentage in the population. Possibly ‘most’ isn’t the best term for it, but consider if you have two groups of equal size, one black and one white, then far and away the black group will be responsible for most of the assaults. Given that would an elderly Asian man be safer around 10,000 whites or around 10,000 blacks? You know the answer.
You were quick to complain that some of my links were to events in the past despite my statement I was showing that this was a long standing problem. Since you are fastidious about time, note that the report you cited is dated 2018 and that there has been a major uptick in assaults on Asians in the last year or so, and, again, black men are often the perpetrators.
It is so obvious that black men are doing much of this that some Progressives have admitted it and blamed black violence against Asians on white supremacy! I think VOX just had an article to that effect, and there have been other reports.
You and the Progressives are desperate to pin the tail on the white supremacy donkey, but it just isn’t so; it is deluded, divisive, destructive and evil for you to keep doing it.
You’ve been saying all along that “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men,” and now you say “Possibly ‘most’ isn’t the best term for it.” Right!
“Most” is not correct (which is what I’ve been telling you all along), and if you knew more math, you’d know that the term you want is a variant of “disproportionate.”
I have no problem saying that in crimes with Asian victims, Blacks are a disproportionate fraction of the offenders.
“You and the Progressives are desperate to pin the tail on the white supremacy donkey, ”
You’re a liar. I’ve never argued that here. My entire argument here has been that your claim “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men” was false and your sampling was off. Apparently the problem is partly that you have a weak math background and never knew how to describe the issue accurately. Do you understand the concepts of proportionality and disproportionality?
“it is deluded, divisive, destructive and evil for you to keep doing it.”
I cannot keep doing it when I never started doing it. You are simply a liar.
You objected to reports that were not current and then cited a 2017 report for your position. That isn’t helpful given that there is a surge in attacks on Asians since Covid, or so we are told. You don’t like old information unless it supports your narrative.
Nonetheless, in the FBI table cited it is fair to say that in absolute numbers blacks committed more assaults on Asians than did any other ethnic group.
It is also fair to say that given that they are a much smaller percentage of the population and are committing more total assaults than any other ethnic group their actual proportion of assaults is very much higher than it is for any other ethnic group, just as it is for murders.
Both go counter to the “”It’s White Supremacy” narrative the left seems to favor lately.
As for your upset that I may have attributed to you something you only implied or did not say at all, that is the price one must expect to pay when using Anonymous among many others using the same abstraction. One Anonymous looks very like another Anonymous.
Some of the Anonymous seem to object to insults in a discussion but this Anonymous resorts to it readily. I likely won’t respond in kind, but don’t be surprised if others do and pay you in your own coin.
“in absolute numbers blacks committed more assaults on Asians than did any other ethnic group”
Yes. However, it’s also true that Blacks did NOT commit most of the assaults. Why can’t you just say that you were wrong when you said “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men”?
“given that they are a much smaller percentage of the population and are committing more total assaults than any other ethnic group their actual proportion of assaults is very much higher than it is for any other ethnic group”
Another sloppy claim. You really should work on your math. Asians are ~5.9% of the US population (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219) but committed 24.1% of the violent attacks (using the 2018 BJS #s from the Bevan tweet and from my earlier citation of that BJS report) — meaning that they committed over 4 times the number of violent attacks on Asians if attacks were strictly proportional to the underlying population, whereas Blacks are ~13.4%, but committed 27.5% of the violent attacks, which is just over twice the number of attacks that you’d expect if they were proportional. Both groups committed a disproportionate fraction of the violent attacks on Asians, but the Asian-on-Asian violence was even more disproportionate than the Black-on-Asian violence.
“that is the price one must expect to pay when using Anonymous … One Anonymous looks very like another Anonymous.”
On the contrary, if you’d simply quoted whoever you were referring to, there would be no problem. The problem is that you like to make sweeping claims about groups instead of dealing with what an individual has said to you.
I would expect Asians to commit more assaults on Asians just as whites assault more whites and blacks assault more blacks, but within the category of racist attacks blacks are still the champions.
You continue to have difficulty saying “I was wrong.”
Anon- “I have no problem saying that in crimes with Asian victims, Blacks are a disproportionate fraction of the offenders.”
***
That expression made me think. One hears it often. For example, black children are punished in school in disproportionate numbers. Blacks are charged with crimes in disproportionate numbers. Blacks are turned down for loans in disproportionate numbers. It goes on in familiar ways and implies that somehow these proportions are wrong or faulty in some way and usually the answer is racism or systemic racism when actual racism can’t be found. Tons of money must be spent on programs to change the proportions that are ‘disproportionate’.
Maybe it isn’t disproportionate. Maybe the proportions are exactly right for a cohort that is hostile and envious of Asians. Maybe the school discipline proportions are right for a cohort that is chronically disruptive. You get the idea.
Meanwhile, Progressives, the Democrats, and the media are straining every fiber to blame all of these problems on white supremacy rather than asking what might be wrong in a community that somehow always seems ‘disproportionate’. Senator Moynihan, a Democrat, a real one rather than one of the Bolsheviks we have today, actually spoke honestly about this problem years ago and despite being highly respected by both parties he was attacked for trying to tell the truth.
As for saying I was wrong, the report from 2018 reflects that blacks were attacking Asians at a higher rate than any other ethnic group despite being only about 14% of the population themselves and they accounted for 27.5% of the total attacks on Asians which is not most, but, as I said, is much more than any other ethnic group. It gets worse. If one excludes Asian on Asian violence which likely had no racial component, about 44,000, you are left with about 138,300 Asians assaulted by other races and blacks would account for about 36% of the inter-racial attacks, a startling number. But that was about 3 years ago and, if reports of 150% increase in attacks on Asians [Vox] are to be believed, the rate of attacks on Asians by blacks in particular, has been increasing sharply judging by the perpetrators who are caught and identified. It could be ‘most’ now and always has been ‘more than anyone else’ which is quite enough to put the notion that white supremacy is responsible for attacks on Asians to rest. To a large degree, ‘it is a black thing’.
You can not contemplate whether the results are correct without actually accepting the results.
The left does not accept that there are significant racial disparities in rates of violence and crime.
Because he isn’t.
You are.
The data supports more racism by blacks against asians than whites against asians by a factor of nearly 6.
John, you often move the goalposts, and you often have difficulty admitting your own mistakes.
Young’s claim that “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men” is false. Denying that he was wrong doesn’t change that his claim is false.
“you often move the goalposts”
Every instance I can think of where you claimed that was YOUR OWN CLAIM,
Where ultimately YOU argued that your remarks could only be construed so litterally and narrowly as to be meaningless.
The classic example is the events at the capital on Jan. 6th.
You can word parse all you want – but even YOU eventually had to narrow yourself to claims so small as to be meaningless.
You wanted to accuse ME of moving the goal posts – regarding weapons vs. firearms – but the FACTS are that regardless of your metric, the Jan 6th event was incomnsequential – compared to say – Any night in portland.
Neither you nor I know whether protestors had firearms inside the capital – but THUS FAR the FBI has no evidence there was. Much less that they were used.
There is weak evidence of small numbers outside the capital – UNUSED.
I honestly do not give a crap if 10,000 trump supporters brought AR-15’s to the capital and demanded that congress refuse to certify the election – Democrats are RIGHT NOW discussing in the House whether to Decertify two house elections that the States certified.
So cut the nonsense that there is some obligation to accept state election results – there is not. There is a process for challenging election results in congress and that process is NOT pro-forma.
I have no problem with hordes or angry armed trump supporters demanding that Congress DO ITS JOB – and look into a lawless and corrupt election.
But even though I have no problem with that – IT DID NOT HAPPEN!!
Nothing remotely close to it happened.
What disturbes me about the Capital protests is not the lefts idiotic claims – but that they were a FIZZLE.
You claim I am moving the goal posts ?
I am not the one that has ever claimed what occured was consequential.
You still think it was – while “moving the goalposts” with ever narrower claims of what actually happened.
“and you often have difficulty admitting your own mistakes.”
I do not make many. I correct those I make. I have seen no evidence that you do.
Regardless, you are still posting as anonymous – which means any claim by or about you is inherently unproveable.
I am not interested in the nonsensical false moral garbage from someone unable to make accusations of others from atleast a pen name.
I post under a pen name – but if you bother to check, you can find my real name, and I am OK with that.
“Young’s claim that “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men” is false.”
I am not interested in your word parsing. I do not trust you to actually quote others – you have frequently mis quoted to deceptively quoted me.
If Young actually wrote what you claim – it is an inconsequential error. It is Accurate to say – blacks attack asians more frequently than any other group including whites, or that the plurality of attacks on asians are by blacks.
The fact is that rates of violence – not only in the US but accross the world have the same racial patterns.
The rate of violence by blacks is twice that of whites – EVERYWHERE, and the rate by Asians is half that of whites EVERYWHERE.
And NO I am not going to offer a correction if either of those are a few percent off.
Your misrepresentations are consequential – the events at the capital on Jan 6th, were inconsequential. to use the terms of the left wing nut media – it was a “mostly peaceful” protest – and unlike the “mostly peaceful” protests of the summer there was no arson, negligable looting and the only consequential property damages was breaking into a building that should not have been locked.
“Denying that he was wrong doesn’t change that his claim is false.”
This is your idea of success ? Of a moral victory ?
Young proved his point – regardless of your idiocy.
The largest group responsible for violence against Asians is Blacks. Not baptists from Atlanta.
But since you are being idiotically pedantic – most means “the greatest number” – it does NOT mean “the majority”.
Youngs statement is correct.
YOU are wrong.
But your most important error is NOT this misrepresentative word smithing nonsense.
It is that you really beleive there is a massive white supremecy problem in the US.
Your an idiot and you are wrong – and the data proves it.
Since you are ranting about moving the goal posts, and failure to correct errors.
Young is correct – MOST does not mean “the majority”, it means “the greatest number”
Websters.
Most: 1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
You owe Young an appology and you need to correct your error.
“MOST does not mean “the majority”, it means “the greatest number”
“Websters. Most: 1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
“You owe Young an appology and you need to correct your error.
I didn’t make an error. You’re simply dishonest, as you didn’t quote the entirety of the Merriam Websters definition, which does indeed include “the majority of,” along with some other meanings.
Which meaning applies depends on the specific wording. The meaning of “Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men” is “[The majority] of the attacks on Asians are by black men.” If you attempt to replace “Most” in that sentence by your preferred “greatest in quantity, extent, or degree,” the result is non-grammatical: “[greatest in quantity] of the attacks on Asians are by black men.”
I find exchanges with you unproductive and boring. I find you arrogant, dishonest, full of double standards, and generally unwilling to back up your claims. I dislike how you vomit walls of multiple responses to a single comment. So I’m not going waste my time responding to the rest of your many replies to me.
“I didn’t make an error. You’re simply dishonest, as you didn’t quote the entirety of the Merriam Websters definition”
You did make and error, I did not quote the entirety of Websters – as it is immaterial.
A definition the FIRST definition does NOT mean majority.
YOU made the moral accusations of Error with respect to Youngs statement.
YOU made a pedantic wordsmithed claim that relied on your personal preference of a secondary defintion.
YOU are requiring that Young is bound to YOU prefered defintion.
That is FALSE, it is pedantic, it is deceiptful.
“Which meaning applies depends on the specific wording.”
Nope.
Which meaning applies depends on the meaning internded by the speaker.
“Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men”
Can just as easily mean
“More attacks on Asians are by black men”
Your claim that your particular way of substituting results in something ungramatical is wrong and irrelevant.
Definitions provide the MEANING of words – they are not automatically substituteable synonmys
The fact that the substitution might result in something ungramatical – even though in this instance it does not.
Does not mean that is not a correct read.
Further it does not matter what Young intended – neither you or I know that.
What matters is that you made an assumption regarding the meaning and accused young of moral failure.
The moral failure is yours.
“I find exchanges with you unproductive and boring. I find you arrogant, dishonest, full of double standards, and generally unwilling to back up your claims. I dislike how you vomit walls of multiple responses to a single comment. ”
None of this surprises me in the least – you have been clearly caught in a lie, and rather than admit you have defamed someone else you are lashing out.
I would suggest looking in the mirror – you are writing about yourself – not me.
You are the one engaged in pedantic nonsense. You tried to claim that “Most” had a single clear meaning – which it obviously does not, and that meaning made Young’s statement false – which it did not.
And you got caught in a pedantic trap of your own making.
No one would be rubbing your face in your own lie or error – but for the fact that YOU made false moral claims regarding another.
Of course you find me arrogant – I repeatedly expose your moral failures. Worse still these are all unforced errors on your part.
YOU made a narrow pedantic assumption about the meaning of most and YOU accused someone else of lying based on that.
Of course you are going to find me dishonest – the alternative, the truth is that YOU are dishonest. I would not expect you can face your own dishonesty.
Of course you are going to claim I have double standards – because clearly YOU have double standards.
There is one difference between what I am doing to you here – and what you did to Young.
The FACT that “most” has multiple meanings, makes YOUR claim of moral failure FALSE and mine true.
I am accusing you of LYING – claiming to know for certain something you can not know.
You accused Young of lying – assuming one possible meaning when there were others.
I would further note that I am being harder on you – Arrogant if you like – not because you were wrong.
We all make mistakes – but because you accused Young of LYING. You made a clearly FALSE moral accusation and got caught.
I have disagreements with others here all the time.
I am at odds with SM over many things.
But I have not accused him of lying, nor has he accused me.
an accusation of lying is an accusation of a moral failure.
You are required to prove it to a high standard. If you fail – the moral failure is YOURS.
I do not give a damn about the meaning of “most” – I would listen, possibly attentively to arguments by you that in this context most means majority. But you did not merely claim that. You claimed that Young was LYING.
You made a claim of moral failure – rather than arguing that your understanding of Most was the better one.
Asian on Asian violence would always be presumed to be the most common – so long as racial groups tend to congregate together.
The same is true of white on white and black on black.
These numbers are not disproportionate.
I would note you can play all kinds of games to diminish the significance of black violence. But that also diminishes that of other groups.
It is likely that most violent crime is commited by violent people – not by racist people.
What is NOT plausible is that white crime against other races is evidence of racism – while the crime of other ethnic groups is not.
“it’s also true that Blacks did NOT commit most of the assaults”
Per capita blacks commit far more attacks against Asians, than whites.
The reason for that is obvious. Asians own and operate a high number of small retail businesses in poor black neighborhoods with high crime rates.
It appears that you and Astor and Hsu have a lot in common.
Blacks commit 52.5% of the murders in the US – is that because Asian’s or whites own shops in black neighborhoods ?’
The FACT is the rate of violence of Blacks against Asians is LOWER than the rate of violence of blacks against whites.
BTW there is an expectation that this is changing – as the majority of gang members in the US today are NOW hispanic, and gangs are the primary driver of violence. But the data has not yet changed.
More ‘disproportionate’ activity. Yes, it is the proportions that are out of whack.
https://twitter.com/DJcalligraphy/status/1374107264303337472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1374107264303337472%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weaselzippers.us%2F
Young, learn more math. It makes no sense to talk about (dis)proportionality unless you first establish what the whole is for which you’re calculating proportions. What is the whole in this case? Spring break brawls? If so, I’m going to guess that it’s white men who engage in those disproportionately. No way to know without gathering the data.
“Young, learn more math. It makes no sense to talk about (dis)proportionality unless you first establish what the whole is for which you’re calculating proportions. What is the whole in this case? Spring break brawls? If so, I’m going to guess that it’s white men who engage in those disproportionately. No way to know without gathering the data.”
There is no evidence that Whites engage in any form of violence “disproportionately to any other minority – except asians.
Whites are twice as violent as asians – in the US and accross the world.
They are about 1/5 as violent as blacks and about 1/2 as violent as hispanics.
Is that true in Spring Break Brawls – I do not know for certain, but is is a reasonable assumption that spring break brawls are not a unique form of violence where whites behave differently. Maybe they are – but the burden of proof for a deviation from the norm is on those arguing for the deviation.
We get into this constantly with those of you on the left.
You are constantly making bogus claims about burden of proof.
Burden of proof is NOT equal.
It is higher for anonymous.
It is higher for those who have actually lied – like these NYT reporters.
It is higher for those arguing a deviation from established trends or norms or patterns.
Perhaps this will help – an asian is slightly more likely to be the victim of black violence than white.
But a Black man is 6 times more likely to act violently towards an asian than a white man.
If we assume what is near certain to be true that racism against a group is proportionate to the violence by members of one group against another – then blacks are 6 times as racist against asians as whites.
THAT is what we are debating.
If you are off debating some other nonsense – that is your problem.
No but it is the largest single group – it is a plurality and it is more than whites.
If demontrates that whites are 3 times LESS likely to commit violent crimes against asians than norms and that blacks are 3 times MORE likely
http://www.americanuckradio.com/blog/2021/2/11/media-is-silent-on-recent-mob-attacks-against-asians-because-theyre-mostly-committed-by-black-males
As I said, they don’t want to talk about it.
I feel like this article doesn’t really put the pieces of the defamation puzzle together very precisely. This leaves some of the musings about news/opinion reporting on shaky ground. Actual malice is not really the issue here at the pretrial motion to dismiss stage. That standard is all about culpability, which the judge would not be ruling on. Whether or not the NY Times was at least reckless with regard to the truth of statements made would be a jury issue. The real issue at this stage is more fundamental, that is, whether or not the statements made were factual in the first place. You can’t have defamation without a false statement, no matter who the litigants are. And you can’t be false if you are stating an opinion, which is by nature neither true or false. Reporting has always been a mixture of fact and opinion and the labeling of it doesn’t necessarily render the content definitively one or the other. Moreover, the issues become even more tangled when media reports the opinions of outside experts, as opposed to asserting its own conclusions. All of these issues existed long before cable news became the vanguard of the journalistic mishmash cesspool which we all swim in today. The issue of being libel-proif is also not related to actual malice, but rather is another part of the fundamental definition of defamation, which is that the plaintiff suffered harm from the false statement. A plaintiff whose reputation is already in the toilet could conceivably be unharmable by a given falsehood. In any event, I don’t see it as particularly surprising or notable that the judge was not willing to get rid of this case at this stage, no matter how goofy an organization Veritas is. There are enough statements which could be plausibly viewed as factual to make judgment as a matter of law difficult to render.
The standards of reporting – atleast for most of my life required striving to remove oppinion from news stories and keep it on the oppinion pages.
BTW an oppinion can be false.
Attorney Hindraker has a good short take on the Veritas lawsuit over at powerline.com blog.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/project-veritas-vs-new-york-times.php
Thanks, Young.
“Discovery should prove interesting. Veritas’s lawyers will be able to inquire into the process whereby the reporters’ smears made it into print.”
I love discovery and in some of the things I have some association with suing and being sued is a good thing because discovery is the main desire.
S.. Meyer– Yes. The NYT can probably afford and judgment that might come out of this. I suspect what worries them is having Project Veritas digging into their dirty secrets. Their reputation is so poor now it is possible that nothing Veritas discovers can sully it further [proof against damages from defamation one might say] but they still won’t want to have it released. Could cost some jobs at the NYT when what they are up to is made public.
The Times own defense is DAMNING and people should read it and grasp what it means.
The most pre-eminent leftist newspaper is saying that when it appears to report facts – it is not, it is lying.
We see this over and over.
Recently WaPo had to admit that it LIED about Trump’s call to the GA Sec State,
When the audio of the call was released.
Nearly the rest of the media repeated the lie – claiming their own independent sources.
In fact that is not possible – they were all repeating the same unsourced lie.
The house impeachment managers based their case against Trump on news stories including this one – all or nearly all of which have proven lies.
We do not get actual quotes of republicans or conservatives – we get the media telling us what they beleive they said.
Even Gossip columns have higher standards.
This is just one story – there are hundreds like it.
But there is signficance to this story.
PV produced undercover video of ACTUAL election fraud in Minesota – you know that stuff the left and the media tells us did not happen, Fraud that involved Ilhan Omar’s camapign Buying votes by the thousands. PV’s video makes clear some of the heinous problems with mailin voting. Actually that is not true – the problems are clear without the reporting. The reporting just proves they are real RIGHT NOW.
PV had to be discredited – otherwise no one would trust the results democrats and the results of the election.
Right now DOJ should be following up on this and other election fraud. But it is not.
How many voters do you think would vote for Omar if this video was aired widely as it deserved ?
How many voters would have voted for democrats ?
They did the same thing to the Biden laptop story. They sold lies as truth.
Now they are pretending they were just oppinions.
Even if that is true – even if you are not prepared to hold them account for defamation.
Why would you beleive the NYT ? The media ?
NYT’s defense is our lies are just oppinion ?
That is news you can trust ?
John– Exactly. They were desperate to discredit PV because of actual evidence of voter fraud and it didn’t appear that lying was going to trouble anyone’s conscience in the NYT building.
I get better coverage of events, by far, from the Daily Mail and other offshore news outlets. Our media reeks of decay.
PV has been remarkably successful in bucking the trends set by the media.
PV does something that is nearly unheard of today – undercover journalism.
They bring hidden camera’s and microphones into their investigation targets.
They record hours and hours of video. They then edit it to produce something short that they think is interesting – but they provide all their raw footage on their web site to deal with claims of deceptive editing.
PV absolutely tilts right in those it targets. It is inarguable that they are “partisan”.
But their video’s still speak for themselfs.
They have demonstrated all kinds of voter fraud all over the country.
With respect to the Ilhan Omar fraud – they only thing they have not done beyond any reasonable doubt is prove that Omar was personally involved.
They provided undercover video that proves that hundreds of ballots were being both coerced and induced – the going rate was $300/ballot.
This is a huge and heinous crime and one wonders why it was not splashed all over the news.
The Times lawsuit demonstrates why.
NYT and the rest of the media collaborated to hide the actual fraud and to discredit PV.
Just as they did to the NYPost story on the Biden’s.
“The most pre-eminent leftist newspaper” The NYT is the neoliberal for Wall Street and the military/industrial complex. I would not consider them “leftist.”
“neoliberal cheerleader”
Today’s NYT is leftist. It has been taken over by your woke staff and it is cow towing to them.
NYT is not what it once was.
In a clearly racist declaration Coca Cola tells its people to be ‘less white’.
Here is what ‘less white’ can look like:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/breaking-swat-team-moves-spring-breakers-commit-violence-destroy-restaurantscity-miami-beach-declares-state-emergency-video/
Another report of blacks attacking Asians. This time on the East Coast.
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2010/04/30/Our-double-standard-on-race-African-Americans-attack-Asians-and-the-nation-yawns/stories/201004300193
That’s from 2010. You saw that, right?
And also on the East Coast. You were complaining that other examples were confined to California. I saw somewhere that about 50% of these crimes occur in California.
In any event, this has been a long-standing problem and nothing now suggests it is going away.
https://www.ktvu.com/news/suspect-in-latest-oakland-attack-of-asian-american-victim-idd
No one here is doubting that we can find examples of Blacks attacking Asians. Of course it’s possible to find examples. But that doesn’t prove that a majority of attacks on Asian are carried out by Blacks. Do you have evidence for the latter or don’t you?
“You were complaining that other examples were confined to California.”
No, I wasn’t complaining, simply noting that they were limited to the Bay Area from 2008, which is not representative of the US. An op-ed about high school attacks in Philadelphia in 2010 also isn’t representative of the US. Perhaps you should take a statistics class, since you’ve repeatedly had problems understanding sampling.
“I saw somewhere that about 50% of these crimes occur in California.”
Maybe you did, or maybe you’re misremembering. If you want to claim it as fact, back it up with data.
Here’s another example of national statistics that show Blacks aren’t responsible for a majority of hate crimes against Asian Americans –
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/tables/table-5.xls
I’m pretty sure that the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting data are released annually.
Anonymous the Stupid, you need to define the terms “majority of attacks “. What is an attack and how is the data collected? You know cr-p.
Anon. I think part of your problem is that you are looking at ‘hate crimes’ and that is a very loose term that lately includes hurting one’s feelings and other crap that people should get over. The table I linked to above, from the FBI. dealt with actual physical violence and that is a little closer to the truth, particularly when radical DAs like those in LA County and San Francisco are reluctant to classify any assault by a black person as a hate crime.
I suppose, come to think of it, that is why Progressives so love ‘hate crime’ categories. They are easier to weave into just about any narrative one chooses. A little harder to get away with it when one is dealing with an actual physical assault.
Paul Mirengoff at powerline.com blog posted a good, brief article on why we should avoid passing hate crime laws. I agree with him.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/why-we-should-hate-hate-crime-laws.php
In some survey’s hate crimes include “shunning” – the beleif of the “victim” that someone avoided them.
It is hard to be more subjective than this.
“But that doesn’t prove that a majority of attacks on Asian are carried out by Blacks”
Correct – BJS’s National Crime Victims survey data proves that blacks are the largest single ethnicity commiting crimes against asians.
The are not the majority – they are a plurality.
White perpitrators make up 24.1% of the crimes against asians.
Your data is from 2017. Further it is Hate Crime Data – which is notoriously unreliable.
Determinations of which crimes to call hate crimes is non-uniform and subjective.
In NYC post Charlotte various official sources had “hate Crimes” rising – despite the fact that actual violent crime data had them falling.
It is nearly impossible to measure peoples motives.
The white guy in the recent asian massage parlor shootings is claiming that he killed people at these massage parlors because they were tempting him into sin. I guess it is possible to argue that someone who frequents asian prostitutes is predjudiced against asians.
Though mostly this seems to be about oportunity not race.
It is also near certain this guy is extremely disturbed – that is common of people who commit these crimes.
The Gafford shooting was motivated by grammar.
It is usually unwise to make presumptions about other peoples motives.
It is always unwise to do so about disturbed people.
It has increased steadily since 2010.
So what’s your point?
You have no point. All you have is a false narrative about “white supremacists”, “systemic racism”, and “domestic terrorists”.
Meanwhile, as Charles Barkley once accurately stated; “The worst enemy of the black man, is the black man.”, still remains true.
But people like you definitely run a close second.
There has to be a black population in an area where Asians exist for there to be black on Asian crime. Though not reported in detail Asians that open up in black areas of NYC frequently face difficulties with the black population. One has to be very careful in the selection of what crimes one is looking at. Crime is vague, so black on Asian crime (to the same entity) might be a near daily occurrence in these areas. One has to define the types of crimes and how different areas report or don’t report such crimes before drawing conclusions. If one doesn’t do that one can publish any set of statistics they desire. That is why a lot of the stuff published by the left for the left is bunk.
S. Meyer — Absolutely correct. In San Francisco about a year ago a young black man savagely beat a defenseless older Asian while yelling vile, racist epithets at him.
The radical SF prosecutor declined to prosecute the case because of historic racial injustices, or some such crap. Nor was this seen as a ‘hate crime’. You have probably noticed that a number of attacks like this when a black person is the perpetrator somehow are not classed as hate crimes despite the fact that if the races were reversed but facts the same the offenses would certainly be screamed across the country as hate crimes.
I would add that my Asian neighbor knows very well who is behind most of the attacks. For him knowing the truth is a matter of personal safety, not for some conjecture in the comment section of a blog.
My daughter is asian – she gets alot of crap. More so recently.
But with very few exepctions this is all false presumptions and predjudices – not violence.
She gets alot of it from blacks – even ones that are her friends.
Blacks today are completely incapable of beleiving that they could be racist against others.
No group in this county is more poorly informed about racism. Blacks presume it is their birth right,
They wear racist victimization like a badge of honor, and they are sometimes violent when others – especially asians claim they too are victims of racism.
The NCVS that Young and I linked to is self reported data for ACTUAL violent crimes.
The National Crime Victim Survey is not likely perfect in terms of reporting – but violent crimes likely have a far higher reporting rate than anything else.
There is one data set being presented now that claims and increase in 2021 anti-asian violence – but it includes shinning, avoidance and other highly subective measures that are NOT measures of racism.
My daughter – Chinese, worked in Target in 2020, and many customers avoided her line – likely because she was asian and they were concerned about covid.
False impressions on the part of the public are not the same as systemic racism. Prior to Covid customers were more likely to line up at her checkout – because she was asian and presumed to be better at math and faster at manual tasks like checkout.
My wife is highly prejudiced against people who will not wear masks – despite the fact that the actual data shows no real world benefit.
I wear a mask when I am out – because the places I go require it and because my clients to.
I do property condition assessments all across the north east.
About 1/3 of the PCA’s I do the owners and maintenance people at these apartment complexes do not mask.
I still mask – because the banks I work for require it.
I would not if they did not.
I respect those who are standing up for liberty – wherever they are.
We are now seeing anti-lockdown riots accross europe.
People are slowly learning that the experts are idiots.
CDC now says that 3′ social distancing is safe in schools.
The fact is that every one of the “experts” has contradicted themselves so many times – it is self evident
THEY DO NOT KNOW.
That is not a bad thing – we expect “experts” to take the information available and give us their informed guesses.
Of course it is critical to allow the expression of disenting views.
And in the end EACH of us gets to decide for ourselves.
I have no problem with the banks I work for requiring masks – even if there is no evidence to support masks.
They have a variety of other reuirements – such as the attire I must wear when representing them.
I am free to choose not to work for them. or not.
I have people who work for me – I require them to wear masks when on jobs – even though there is no evidence to support masks.
I have that rule – because it is my clients rule – but even if it was not, I probably still would do so, though maybe less rigidly.
I also require them to dress well.
And I require them to get vaccinated if they wish to work for me.
PC enters into the collection of these numbers.
What I have been saying. Most of the attacks on Asians are by black men.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Dirty-secret-of-black-on-Asian-violence-is-out-3265760.php
I hope you understand that 12 year old data can’t tell you what’s happening now, and data from the Bay Area can’t tell you what’s happening nationally.
It continues as you can see from current videos and news reports from around the country. I hope you understand that current information is also useful. I have referred to it in the past. This time I am showing you that this has been a trend for a long while. In fact, if you remember the black Long Island commuter killer he walked through the cars expressly choosing Asians and whites to murder.
For some reason the Progressives are determined to turn everything into white racism. It isn’t by a long shot, but the national media will still lie.
I’m not “determined to turn everything into white racism.” Racism in the US clearly isn’t limited to racism from whites. I’m determined to have a truthful discussion. The research a couple of us presented in the “White Supremacist Thinking column” earlier today (WTF?! at 12:28 PM, me at 12:25 PM) shows that most hate crimes against Asians are not carried out by Blacks, so I’m also not going to by your preferred story.
Nonsense. I suspect you have a peculiar definition of ‘hate crimes’. The actual physical assaults on Asians are predominantly by blacks though you would never know it if you relied on MSNBC or CNN or the other media for that matter. You can deny it, and probably will, but the local videos and news reports keep coming out showing what is actually happening. I suspect that for some of them this is just a form of sport, like the knock-out game that injured many people and killed a few when black youths suddenly struck unsuspecting white people trying to knock them out. It was also called polar bear hunting. But don’t expect the national media to worry about something like that.
It’s not nonsense.
I linked to a peer reviewed article from the American Journal of Criminal Justice, and it’s not my definition. Did you bother to read it? The other person linked to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2019 on criminal victimization. Did you bother to read it?
Present some national data to back up your claim that “The actual physical assaults on Asians are predominantly by blacks.” Because so far, you haven’t presented any national data, and you’re in denial about research that contradicts your claim, for no reason that I can tell, except that you’re unwilling to accept the possibility that you’re wrong.
Anonymous the stupid, you are a fool. Define all your terms and how things are registered. That will be a good start. Blatantly calling out numbers is meaningless. What you are dealing with are studies created to produce a certain result. I just went over that with Bug trying to show how one could look at the problem of whether red or blue states get more federal funding. He didn’t understand what was relatively simple and I don’t think you have that ability either.
Anon: “Present some national data to back up your claim that “The actual physical assaults on Asians are predominantly by blacks.” Because so far, you haven’t presented any national data,”
***
I posted an article with a link to the FBI reports above. That probably qualifies as national data. Attacks on Asians by blacks predominate.
Some people are working very hard to try to hide or displace an obvious truth. Why?
Another thing: the election was stolen.
Yes, the FBI reports are national data, and I just posted one to you that contradicts your claim.
The Tom Bevan tweet you posted above in support of your claim is actually from the same report that WTF! posted on the other thread, and it also contradicts your claim. My guess: you didn’t actually look at the data in the tweet before posting it.
Your AmeriCanuck article links to a BJS page, not the FBI, and the page it links to doesn’t have any race-specific data. Maybe you hadn’t bothered to click on the link before writing your comment.
How about you link directly to whatever FBI data you’re talking about?
“Some people are working very hard to try to hide or displace an obvious truth. Why?”
You’re working very hard to avoid presenting national data that back up your claim, and you’re also working hard at avoiding dealing with the data that contradict your claim. Why?
You didn’t look very carefully. The article included links to an FBI table. There is a big difference between a tabulation of ‘hate crimes’ whatever they may be and a tabulation of actual physical violence.
Oh, did you mean the table at the end that doesn’t have an active link, only an image of a link?
If you’d bothered typing it out yourself, you’d find that that one ALSO contradicts your claim –
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-5
The table in the article shows hate crimes per capita by race (for select races), and maybe your weak math background again interferes with your understanding that Blacks can have a higher per capita rate despite committing fewer total hate crimes. BTW, if you don’t want to focus on hate crimes, then don’t refer to a link about hate crimes.
The moment you start with “hate crime” data – you start with highly subjective highly inaccurate data, that is a tiny portion of the whole.
The dead asians (as well as some whites and hispanics) in altanta – are DEAD.
Does it matter whether you guess that the perpitrator was motivated by Race – despite the fact that he has denied that and there is no evidence he was racially predjudiced ?
Or is what matters that these people are DEAD.
I would further note that it is near certain that the number of “hate motivated” crimes is a subset of “violent crimes” and that all motives distribute approximately evenly accorss victim classes.
And we posted reports of actual crime data – that dispoves your claims – and those of the FBI.
All that you have succeeded in doing is proving that subjective data on subjective claims is subjective.
Whatever errors in the NCVS they are quite small. While your FBI hate crimes data is subjective to the point of meaningless.
It is always a mistake to pretend that you can objectively measure the motives of others.
BJS – Bureau of Justice Statistics.
We provided the entire 2018 NCVS survey results – a survey of all the victims of all violent crimes in the US in 2018 – excluding murder – because murder victimes can not respond to a survey.
There are probably small errors here – it does not include murders, and there are likely a small percent of crime victims that are missed.
But again – those errors are small.
The FBI data you provided is much smaller and accross the board more subjective
It is inherently subjective and incomplete.
While the NCVS is based on the self reporting of ACTUAL victims of real crimes.
The FBI link you provided is not based on actual crimes but only those that the FBI or someone else has subjectively determined are “hate crimes”
And we see the problems with that in the recent asian massage parlor murders.
The perpitrator – a disturbed man, claims he killed prostitutes who served as a occasion of sin for him.
The left, the media etc. claim it is a racially motivated hate crime.
How do you determine which is right ? You can;’t – especially when you are trying to prove something the perpetrator denies.
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/when-the-narrative-replaces-the-news-9ea
Here is actual governnent data from the BJS’s national crime victim survey.
The link is to the BJS,gov website
The data is self reported from the victims of violent crime.
Specifically look at table 14 on page 13
This is the offender race for each victim race class.
Of all violent crimes against Asians – Whites are responsible for 24.1% – even though whites make up 62% of the population.
Conversely 27.5% of crimes against asians are committed by blacks who make up about 11% of the population.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
“Present some national data to back up your claim that “The actual physical assaults on Asians are predominantly by whites.” Because so far, you haven’t presented any national data, and you’re in denial about research that contradicts your claim, for no reason that I can tell, except that you’re unwilling to accept the possibility that you’re wrong.”
I have a problem with the entire term “hate crime”.
Hate may be abhorent – but it is not a crime.
Crimes are acts. Hate is at worst an agrevating factor.
Does it matter much whether you are assaulted because you are asian ? or because you are being mugged ?
No most hate crimes against asians are not carried out by blacks.
But more are carried out by blacks than whites – and there are 3 times as many whites as blacks.
Further the FACTS – that anyone who has lived in the US since the 60’s knows is that Racism in the US is at its lowest point EVER, and Racism int he US is less prevalent than anywhere else in the world.
And that of the problems facing minorities in this country – Racism is the least consequential.
I am the adoptive parent of two asian children. I confront real racism against them all the time.
It is annoying but it is rarely consequential.
I also confront stupidity – far more.
I am constantly approached by well meaning people with totally stupid and often offensive questions about my kids and adoption.
Nearly all the time, these questions are inartful, they are not intentionally hurtful.
They are looking for knowledge and understanding and do not have the words to do so tactfully.
That is not racism.
Then provide better data.
Rrgardless, the left constantly makes assertions from thin air and then complains that the refutation of something never proven in the first place does not meet their standards.
I beleive the 2019 data confirms that whites make up 62% of the population and are responsible for 24% of the violence towards asians.
In general asians are have as violent as whites,
Hispanics are about 50% more violent than whites.
And blacks are twice as violent as whites
Further though overall violence of all is declining.
This racial pattern exists – not just int he US but accross the world.
“And blacks are twice as violent as whites”
**
I think more than that. Black men constitute about 7% of the population and account for 54% of the murders.
If we are unable to look at the actual facts – we can not hope to solve the problem.
Crime has declined across the US since the mid eighties.
Many many people have claimed to identify the cause of that.
Guilliani as an exmple claims that as mayor his broken windows and stop and frisk policies were responsible.
In the past there were atleast 4 competely and plausable explanations – and Guiliani’s was not the strongest.
Since this summers “defund the police” nonsense we have seen a huge spike in violence accross the country.
It is now self evident that Broken Windows and Stop and Frisk policing brough violent crime down atleast 50%.
We have spiked violence in our cities – and we KNOW what caused that and we KNOW how to get rid of it.
But we are unwilling to face facts – because it conflicts with a leftist narrative.
We have something similar at the Southern Border.
Trump cracked down at the border – and the result was fewer crossings and less child separations.
Biden and democrats through the entire campaign sent an open borders message. And are now shocked that people south of the border took them seriously.
They are impotently waiving their hands saying there is no crisis, or “Please do not come”,
Biden is actually saying – “We will not send unaccompanied children home” – and seems suprised that they do not stop coming ?
He is trying to relax the standards for asylum – and wonders why more people are trying to cross the border.
Democrats incentivize conduct they do not want – and then are surprised when they get it – lots of it.
“Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
– Robert Frost
___________
Consider the promises of the Constitution which didn’t make it through the lovely but dark and deep woods. Congratulations, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood. Inconceivably, you executed your constitutional duty. Shocking! However, you have miles to go before you sleep. The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has a nation worth of unconstitutionality to eradicate and correct. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional and must be abrogated. The original Constitution and Bill of Rights must be re-implemented per their “manifest tenor” and the unconstitutional aberrations eliminated.
Should not the Times’ position that it considers Project Veritas to be so loathsome as to be “libel-proof” be significant evidence of malice toward the plaintiffs?
No. It is a defense argument. Not evidence of malice. Although there is such a thing as slander by pleadings, I don’t think this qualifies.
“slander by pleadings”
Young can you define, give an example, tell us what punishment exists and how that is executed.
TIA
Normally one would expect some degree of protection in making allegations in pleadings but some cases are fought outside the courtroom as well as inside. If you use your pleadings to defame someone outside of the judicial arena it might lead to liability. I have known a case where a lawyer drafted his pleadings with the intention of getting it to the press to impact others. It was a union attorney in a suit involving a strike. Here is something on the general idea.
https://www.schnader.com/files/Publication/6da99a55-ba5c-4ede-8be1-2b205a53a933/Preview/PublicationAttachment/d23b8ae7-9060-45e5-ad59-1a3928bfb2fc/MLRC_Solano_11-04.pdf
Thanks Young, this leaves a lot open but two things caught my eye. First I can’t get by “After all, a lawyer who provides a court document to a reporter is merely enabling the press to report about it.”, but a lot isn’t clear so lawyers won’t send such pleadings to the press to avoid the question which doesn’t appear settled. And then there is the question of what privilege was violated. “One answer to this concern may be that the Bochetto case was argued under the wrong privilege.”
I guess I would play it safe and let the reporter get it directly.
If however the pleading was a conscious lie and could be proven to be known to be a conscious lie I could see a problem but can’t see the solution that is needed.
“If however the pleading was a conscious lie and could be proven to be known to be a conscious lie I could see a problem but can’t see the solution that is needed.”
***
That’s where the court and evidence come in. Sometimes you can clean it out with a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Thanks Young that is the term I was looking for. I was going to say if the lie was so blatant the judge would end up throwing the case out but I didn’t remember how that happens, Motion for Summary Judgement. That ends the problem that troubled me because there had to be some legal remedy for outright lies in a legal plea.
A little more. It has been a long while since I followed this, but I suspect that if a person deliberately puts defamatory material in his pleadings that have little legal relevance to the actual case the lawyer, and maybe his clients, might be open to a suit for defamation. Even if I couldn’t find a precedent to support that claim I would make the claim intending to create a precedent because it seems reasonable and it wouldn’t impair legitimate judicial procedures. You do not always need a statute or precedent to pursue a legitimate claim as the lawyers in the Tarasoff case clearly understood. That, I think, is one of the beauties of the common law.
frcp 12 can strike “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” content
if you want to read a nasty complaint, find Morris Dees’ ex wife’s divorce petition. EEEK! If what she said is true then he’s a bad dude
It’s a hard dig to find it but its out there.
Sal Sar
Yes, good point.
Yes, that is what Turley said.
Professor Turley, reading this article I thought, not for the first time, that I am sorry I didn’t get to take your Torts class. I think it would be excellent and very rewarding.
Not flattery. I disagree with you shamelessly from time to time, and probably would in your class, but I would thoroughly enjoy it.
I guess that many are not aware that Mr. Turley is liberal law scholar at Georgetown.
Who is being very successfully red pilled by a bat $hit crazy left.