NBCUniversal lost a major motion in the defamation lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Dr. Mahendra Amin, an obstetrician gynecologist who was accused by MSNBC hosts, including Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace, of performing unnecessary hysterectomies at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) center. The case will now go forward to trial on the claim that Maddow and Wallace made “verifiably false” statements on air.
Defamation lawsuits are fairly common for major media, including like the recent settlements of Fox with Dominion and NBC and various outlets with high school student Nicholas Sandmann.
The Supreme Court has given the press added “breathing room” with the higher standard of proof found in cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan. Under that standard, a plaintiff must show that a statement was knowingly false or published with reckless disregard of the truth.
The complaint alleges that NBC reporters Jacob Soboroff and Julia Ainsley developed the story on whistleblower’s claims despite initial skepticism from the network’s standards department.
MSNBC quickly followed with a series of on-air reports in which the doctor was often referred to as the “uterus collector.” The story was based on allegations by “a former nurse at the facility named Dawn Wooten.” Wooten is quoted extensively in the opinion:
We’ve questioned among ourselves like goodness he’s taking everybody’s stuff out …. That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly … is he collecting these things or something[?] … Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out.
Despite misgivings about Wooten’s credibility, MSNBC went forward with stories that portrayed Dr. Amin as a virtual Dr. Mengele. Critics charged that the story was irresistible for the channel in bringing together reproductive health issues, immigration, and social equity issues. Whatever the reason, hosts and executives set aside their doubts and ran stories that made Dr. Amin an infamous figure throughout the country.
Judge Lisa Godbey Wood (S.D. Ga.) found that the stories were false in claiming that Dr. Amin performed “hysterectomies that were unnecessary, unauthorized, or even botched.” She also found that MSNBC may have published the reports knowing that the allegations were false or with reckless disregard of the truth.
In granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Amin, Judge Wood wrote:
Multiple statements are verifiably false. The undisputed evidence has established that: (1) there were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility; (2) Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies on female detainees from the ICDC; and (3) Dr. Amin is not a “uterus collector.” The Court must look to each of the statements in the context of the entire broadcast or social media post to assess the construction placed upon it by the average viewer. Doing so, the undisputed evidence establishes that multiple NBC statements are false.
The Court emphasized that “it does not matter that NBC did not make these accusations directly, but only republished the whistleblower letter’s allegations. If accusations against a plaintiff are “based entirely on hearsay,” “[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges.”
That can be a chilling standard for the media, which often reports on the fact of allegations that are newsworthy. However, Judge Wood said that NBC went well beyond such a role in this case:
…the focus of these three broadcasts was not on unnecessary or unconsented-to “medical procedures.” The focus was on “mass hysterectomies” and “high numbers of hysterectomies,” performed without necessity and consent, at the facility. This is reinforced by MSNBC’s own headlines: “WHISTLEBLOWER: HIGH NUMBER OF HYSTERECTOMIES AT ICE DETENTION CTR.” and “COMPLAINT: MASS HYSTERECTOMIES PERFORMED ON WOMEN AT ICE FACILITY.”
The court noted that “[w]hile opinions and hyperbole are typically non-actionable, they become actionable when they are capable of being proved false.” That includes MSNBC referring to Dr. Amin as someone known to be a “uterus collector” and “taking everybody’s stuff out” state facts that can be proved false. Judge Wood held that “[t]hese statements are not mere subjective assessments of Plaintiff over which reasonable minds could differ. They are also not simply rhetorical hyperbole or obviously exaggerated statements that are unprovable…”
Under Georgia law, the court held that this met the “actual malice” standard. What makes the case particularly damaging is the use of MSNBC’s own hosts, lawyers, and fact-checkers to show knowingly false or reckless publication:
Plaintiff has presented evidence that NBC’s statements were inherently implausible. The allegations that there were “mass hysterectomies,” Plaintiff was a “uterus collector” or collected uteri, Plaintiff performed hysterectomies “for which no medical indication existed,” and that Plaintiff performed hysterectomies on all or nearly all his patients are so implausible that a jury could infer actual malice. The implausibility of these statements is clear, given that NBC found evidence of only two hysterectomies. NBC’s investigation did not yield evidence of more than two hysterectomies. Wooten told NBC she did not know how many women had had hysterectomies.
An attorney source, Sarah Owings, told NBC that her team was not finding evidence of mass hysterectomies. Another attorney source, Ben Osorio, told NBC that one client had had a hysterectomy that medical records revealed was medically necessary and another client believed she had had a hysterectomy, but no evidence supported this claim. NBC’s own reporter, Julia Ainsley, reinforced these facts when she texted her colleague: “But only two hysterectomies?” The attorney who told NBC that there were more than two hysterectomies, Andrew Free, also told NBC that those reports had not been confirmed and were still being vetted. Free even explicitly told NBC that he could confirm only one hysterectomy.
Nevertheless, NBC published statements that Plaintiff performed mass hysterectomies. Although NBC’s own sources told it that there was evidence of only one hysterectomy, NBC stated as fact: “five different women … had a hysterectomy done”; “as many as 15 immigrant women were given full or partial hysterectomies”; and “[e]verybody this doctor sees has a hysterectomy, just about everybody.” These statements contradict information known to NBC at the time of reporting. The same applies to the accusations that Plaintiff was a “uterus collector” or that detainees referred to him as such. Aside from Wooten’s allegation, NBC lacked any evidence that could support the accusation that Plaintiff collected uteri or was known as the “uterus collector” at the ICDC. A jury could conclude that NBC knew these allegations were false.
Plaintiff has presented evidence that there were obvious reasons to doubt Wooten’s reliability, credibility, and accuracy. In her interview with NBC, Wooten could not name Plaintiff, did not know what happened when detainees visited Plaintiff, and did not know how many women had received gynecological procedures, even acknowledged this herself. Wooten could not provide a number for how many women she had spoken to about gynecological care at the facility. She told NBC that she had spoken to “several women” in the eight years she worked at the ICDC. In essence, Wooten could provide only hearsay evidence to support her allegations. NBC’s reporter, Jacob Soboroff, texted his colleague that one source had “heard mixed things about Wooten.” NBC’s deputy head of Standards was critical of Wooten because she “provide[d] no evidence to back up her claims,” had “no direct knowledge of what she’s claiming,” and she could not “name the doctor involved.”
MSNBC’s hosts also voiced concerns over Wooten’s reliability. Rachel Maddow believed Wooten’s whistleblower letter jumped to conclusions and “didn’t want to assume it’s true.” Chris Hayes also criticized Wooten’s letter because it was based on secondhand information and Wooten had “no factual, firsthand knowledge.” Not only did NBC have reasons to doubt Wooten, but NBC actually doubted her.
…
Here, there is evidence of just that. The deputy head of NBC’s Standards, Chris Scholl, said that the whistleblower letter “boils down to a single source—with an agenda—telling us things we have no basis to believe are true.” He also later said that Wooten “has a beef” and “a whole separate agenda.” As detailed above, Scholl interspersed these observations of Wooten’s bias with doubts about the truth of Wooten’s story. While only a jury can determine whether Wooten was a credible or believable source, Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence that would enable a jury to find that she was not….
The court also details how top executives ran the story despite their own reservations.
Chris Scholl approved the initial news article written by Ainsley and Soboroff. He also worked on MSNBC’s broadcasts of the statements. As detailed above, Scholl expressed concerns over the veracity of the statements. He pointed out the lack of evidence to support the accusations, doubted Wooten as a credible source, and said that NBC had been unable to verify the accusations. Scholl even explicitly stated: “We don’t know the truth.” A jury could determine that Scholl expressed serious doubts.
Judge Wood notes that Maddow “is responsible for the content of her show,” but ran the story despite expressing the fact that she had “serious doubt” about the account of the whistleblower.
She also noted that Hayes said that the story went viral because it recalled Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow South, but, in reality, that was “not the case here.”
While the court acknowledges that NBC could well convince a jury at trial, he held:
Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that could enable a jury to find actual malice. A jury could also conclude that NBC did not act with actual malice given the evidence that it published opposing information. This duel of conflicting evidence must be resolved by a jury….
The case is Amin v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC.
N.B.: For full disclosure, while I worked twice for NBC/MSNBC, I now work as a legal analyst for Fox Corp.
Jonathan: Throwing mud at MSNBC over Dr. Amir’s defamation lawsuit is small potatoes compared to the $787 million your employer had to pay Dominion Voting Systems for the defamation by Fox hosts. Fox is currently involved in another defamation lawsuit by Smartmatic over similar defamation claims about the 2020 election. While you mention the Dominion case in passing you never covered it extensively in any of your columns at the time–nor have you covered the Smartmatic litigation. Not like your column today about the Amir case. I think we know why.
As Fox’s “legal analyst” your job is to deflect–gleefully reporting on Dr. Amir’s lawsuit because you don’t like MSNBC’s programming that consistently covers the crimes of DJT. As a paid spokesman for Fox your role is to attack any outlet that does not reflect the demagogic right-wing propaganda outlet where you work. That’s pretty clear from your column today.
Clearly, the larger Fox suit reflects the fact that people actually watch Fox, so more potential damage. Regardless, the election was rigged and msnbc is a liar – all the time.
Dennis McIntyre, Biden’s Baghdad Bob, tried this deflection to protect the Soviet Democrats Propaganda Arm:
Jonathan: Throwing mud at MSNBC over Dr. Amir’s defamation lawsuit is small potatoes compared to the $787 million your employer had to pay Dominion Voting Systems for the defamation by Fox hosts.
Nice of Baghdad Bob McIntyre to remind everybody of the Soviet Democrats two systems of justice that includes Soviet Democrat judges determining who gets away with defamation
Dennis hopes nobody knows that his propagandist, Rachael Mad Cow who’s one of his “legal analysts”, in the very same judicial district got a pass on being sued for even more. Because THAT judge – also an Obama judge – said none of her viewers believed her. She got a pass because the judge ruled that her viewers like Dennis McIntyre know she’s a pathological serial liar, and therefore her calling a competing network a Putin run operation couldn’t be defamation.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-rules-rachel-maddows-statements-cannot-reasonably-be-interpreted-as-allegations-of-fact
So before the FOX award by an Obama judge, a previous one gave Rachael Mad Cow’s network a pass, claiming it couldn’t be definition when viewers like Dennis knew she was a pathological liar as part of making a living. Did you REALLY believe the Mad Cow was lying to you every time you watched her, Dennis?
Can Dennis give his unwilling audience his best guess at what CNN paid for defaming that Catholic High School kid.
Dennis McIntyre, Biden’s Baghdad Bob, deflects from MSNBC “journalists” being sued AGAIN:
Jonathan: Throwing mud at MSNBC over Dr. Amir’s defamation lawsuit is small potatoes compared to the $787 million your employer had to pay Dominion Voting Systems for the defamation by Fox hosts.
Why didn’t you comment on THIS one which involves THREE of your favorite Soviet Democrat Defamation News Makers at NBC who also throw a few dollars your way: “The judge ruled that Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, and Chris Hayes made “verifiably false” statements about the doctor, who is suing NBC for $30 million.”
Rachel Maddow and Her Co-Stars Made ‘Verifiably False’ Statements About a Doctor They Called the ‘Uterus Collector.’ Now His $30 Million Lawsuit Is Headed For Trial.
https://freebeacon.com/media/rachel-maddow-and-her-co-stars-made-verifiably-false-statements-about-a-doctor-they-called-the-uterus-collector-now-his-30-million-lawsuit-is-headed-for-trial/
Any “legal analysis” you would like to offer your audience in response, Baghdad Bob McIntyre? After all, this isn’t the same district where Obama judges gave her a pass for defamation after which another Obama judge in the same district slammed FOX…
Dennis,
Dr., Amir should and likely will win his lawsuit against MSNBC of all the high profile defamation lawsuits we have seen,
Amirs is the most egregious. He is a private actor. He did not come looking for this. MSNBC came looking for a story to suit their political narrative. They clearly did not care if it was true, and they did not care if the portrayed Amir as Mengele in doing so.
All that said – we must reign in defamation. Amir should receive a modest award. An more importantly a public apology by MSNBC – that is the correct punishment for their actions.
We – primarily the left have weaponized defamation as a tool to force people to censor themselves.
That is morally and ethically wrong and it is harmful to society.
54% of MSNBC viewers think the lean too far left, and the have only single digit public Trust – Fox – who is only trusted by 1/4 of people still has 4 times the trust of MSNBC.
The consequence for media bias and false reporting should be the one that the public inflicts on them – loss of Trust, loss of viewers, being defeated in the market by more trustworthy competitors.
Coases law states that as transactional friction declines free markets with strong protections for property rights best resolve problems.
The Amir case has atleast hints of right wing lawfare – though Amir is entitled to a significant public apology by MSNBC
The appropraite resolution of the left wing weaponizing defamation lawsuits to force self censorship is NOT to resort to right wing lawfare.
When Times V. Sullivan was decided 5-4 – 4 Justices wanted to go much farther and gut Defamation. That would have been a better result.
The media lies constantly today as a result the media is NOT trusted. The relative trustworthiness of different outlets is accurately reflected in polls, and in their declines in ratings. It is far more acceptable for MSNBC to continue its ratings death spiral – or to take the oportunity to restore trust and revive ratings, than to be sued into oblivion. The same is true of Fox – having 4 times the trust of MSNBC or most of the rest of the MSM does NOT make you trustworthy.
Americans are flocking to independnet sources of journalism as a consequence of the lies spread by the MSM.
That is exactly as it should be.
I replied that the market is pretty good at sorting out issues such as Trust. We do not need defamation lawsuits.
That same system works with respect to posters on this blog.
Your remarks are constantly defamatory, lies, half lies and bias innuendo.
Turley has not sued you for defamation .
But you have earned your complete lack of credibility.
This is how free speech actually works.
All of us start out neutral – neither trusted or distrusted.
The more we speak the more we gain or lose credibility.
Many here – right and left rant about the trolls on Turley’s site and the purported cesspool it has become.
I do not agree. The comment section of this site shows the relative merits of different posters and the positions they offer.
While I reply and criticize many comments such as yours, for the most part comentors do an excellent job of showing who they are.
and are judged accordingly.
I think that works pretty well.
John Say,
Well said!
As I have mentioned in the past here on the good professor’s blog, I generally just scroll past the trolls, Dennis, Natasha et al.
But occasionally I will read their comments. It does in fact give us insight to their minds and mental state, i.e. TDS.
We also see the degree of lies, misinformation, disinformation they either spread or believe, like believing anything Rachel Maddow says.
We have also seen exactly how desperate they have become as their MSM narratives have failed or are failing. The latest being Biden is “sharp as a tack,” when the reality is he has been on the mental decline since at least 2020. All us sane, normal people saw it, said it, and yet they cried we were conspiracy theorists. Just like COVID, masks, vaccines, lockdowns all worked according to them. If we questioned any of those, we were accused of trying to kill grandmaw.
Yes. Their narrative has failed or is failing.
How marvelous!
UpstateFarmer posted:
I generally just scroll past the trolls, Dennis, Natasha et al. But occasionally I will read their comments. It does in fact give us insight to their minds and mental state, i.e. TDS.
None of us know – on any forum – what is in the minds of people who do actually read the demagoguery and lies of Dennis, Gigi, FishThings, etc. So, with that in mind, then what?
I DO believe that silence in response to this barrage of lies and demagoguery cumulatively becomes consent. This is why repeatedly reporting outrageous lies works so well “i.e. the Russia Dossier is verified intelligence agency proof Trump is a Russian stooge” and “51 retired Intelligence agents have determined that the Biden laptop is Russian election disinformation”.
When Soviet Democrat party apparatchiks like these… things whose usernames are above… post their demagoguery, claiming it is Trump (or a parent, or a female athlete) who is doing what they are doing themselves, there are thousands of other eyes watching. We don’t know what they’re thinking after reading a post like those they put here. You respond to their demagoguery and lies so that those third person watchers see more than The Big Lie being promoted. They see their claims challenged, they see their credibility and motives challenged.
You won’t win the Soviet Democrat apparatchik over. None of them will ever respond that, yes, they lied and you’re right and they’re wrong. You are hoping to influence anyone reading the comments of the demagogues who is willing to also consider the responses before making up their own mind..
Refute their claims. Point out that they’re liars. Point out that they’re amoral hypocrites. Point out they are accusing others of what they themselves are demonstrably doing. Point out that they have two completely opposite standards of prosecution and justice.
The easiest and most tempting response to these Soviet Democrat political apparatchiks is to simply hit the button and go looking for interesting comments and debate. But Silence IS Consent. Whether the silence of the Mainstream Media, Hollywood choosing not to believe their lying eyes, etc. or we as individuals.
Just something to think about. To each his own, accountable only to themselves, but I will not give these vicious liars and demagogues a pass. No matter whether their target is Trump, a doctor being defamed, parents treated as domestic terrorists for daring to protest gender blending rapists in their daughters’ changerooms. They will never get the consent they desire for their version of what is happening through my silence.
I do not practice the law, but in France, the Defendant must prove what they said is true. Perhaps this is a good thing, no?
Some of the problems with the actual malice standard in today’s world – the news cycle is much shorter, clicks drive headlines, and reporters are more concerned with advocacy than getting the news right.
The last is critical. News reporters are more akin to authors than journalists of yore. They are trying to provide facts and allowing the viewer/reader/listener to decide, they are trying to influence the decision.
When the objective is to provide facts and timelines need to be met, there needs to be leeway for mistakes – they are inevitable.
If the objective is to drive the narrative, then facts are secondary (at best).
The presumption of trying their best to present factual information should not be made. Until such a time they practice journalism, not activism – defamation allegations against the media should be held to a lower threshold of proof.
This “news” was gossip.
Attention Rachel and Nicolle-
Look at the bright side: With a perp walk, at least you get good exercise.
Odd that MSNBC is targeting a man of color, an immigrant, who graduated from Government Medical College, Surat in India, and likely faced formidable adversity to practice medicine in America, set up practice in Georgia. OTOH, Democrats / MSNBC are known for being racists
Estovir…..absolutely!
Since the doc passed Go, he should collect two uteri. The three malicious gals can draw straws.
Objectivity is not the objective.
any evidence of hermaphrodism suspected
Wat about project 2025
I agree with Phinca. I despise the N.Y. Times vs Sullivan ruling. I have this old fashioned concept of everyone being equal before the law. I don’t think the press should get a free ride. I had read some other recent stories on this case and the judgement. There were obvious holes in the story from the first. As alluded to in the column, the nurse not knowing the doctors name is a clearcut alarm bell for a false report. One wonders if she even went to the Hospital Quality Assurance committee with her complaint or just went straight to the press. Quality Assurance reviews are set up in Surgery Centers and Hospitals by depts so surgeons review surgeons, internists and FP’s are reviewed by Internists and FP’s, Pediatricians are reviewed by pediatricians and so on. Ob Gyn may be reviewed by a separate dept or by a surgery dept. The key is to similar training judging similar practitioners. Usually these committees have immunity and confidentiality but the quickest way to have that immunity lost is to try to have a case like this adjudicated by a quality assurance committee and action taken by a committee on such a nothing charge and evidence. With no name, no numbers, no supporting pathology of removed specimens, and fulfilling clear indications for a hysterectomy a case like this would have been summarily dismissed or laughed out by any quality assurance committee.
About every warning sign you could have was there and discussed and they went ahead anyway. MSNBC deserves a huge award decided against them.
Usually I highly regard nurses perspectives on physician behavior but that is not 100%. There are bad apples.
There should be a complaint leveled to the Georgia Nursing Licensure Board and the license of this nurse either suspended or revoked.
Worth noting in Turley’s ridiculous postscript saying he twice worked for nbc/msnbc but now works at fox that he didn’t keep the defamation score along with it. That 787 milly goals against is pretty tough to live down, but Turls figures if he just doesn’t admit relevant facts it’s all good.
My guess is msnbc won’t even settle on this one.
How much did CNN pay Sandman?
I appreciate the comments section early in the morning, before the trolls’ mommies wake them and tell them to get up. The general tenor changes after that. The Ukrainian troll above doesn’t count, because he’s on the other side of the world.
JT says “Defamation lawsuits are fairly common for major media, including like the recent settlements of Fox with a voting machine company…”
Yea, the Dominion/Fox suit was just a run of the mill complaint where they settled out of court for $787 million. No biggie, sttlements like that are just a cost of doing business trying to deceive the public.
YAWN
Yea, the Dominion/Fox suit was just a run of the mill complaint where they settled out of court for $787 million. No biggie
Especially if you don’t see anything odd when, just before that in the same district, ANOTHER Obama judge gave Rachael Maddow and her network a pass after they were sued for defamation by ruling that Maddow’s viewers knew she made her living engaging in pathologically lying to them. And because they knew the statements of facts she makes on her show were false, defamation could not have happened.
FOX didn’t settle and ran with the Maddow decision as their defense. Suddenly didn’t work when it was FOX… but… like you said… no biggie.
So… NBC’s viewers know the NBC hosts are liars, so no defamation. BUT… Fox’s viewers believe their hosts are absolutely telling the truth.
How long has Rachael Maddow been pitching the Soviet Democrat “Russia Dossier” as true? And what percentage of Soviet Democrats still believe it’s actual intelligence agencvy product?
Hit the Media hosts, analyst and Media companies where it hurts in the Pocket Book, especially Maddow/Wallace. The one thing liberals hate the most is to have their $$$$$$$ taken away from them. Liberal Media Companies hate big pay outs.Hope the good Doctor wins a big settlement against Maddow/Wallace/MSNBC/NBC
Yep, how many $ millions has trump been ordered to pay? And how does his orders to pay compare to anybody other individual?
Trump hasn’t paid anything yet because he will win every case on appeal. Having a corrupt DA and a corrupt judge fine you $450 million for “over valuing your RE is a joke.
Btw, Boeing had two planes crash around the world, hundreds of people killed in a horrifying way and they government just accepted a deal where they are to pay $250 million while at the same time this same DOJ coordinated with NY officials to fine Trump almost twice that for a RE deal where he paid off the loan.
HullBobby,
The Free Press ran an article on the Boeing deal that I think should apply to the executives at MSNBC, Wallace, Maddow, Soboroff and Ainsley.
You Want to Fix Boeing? Prosecute Its Executives.
https://www.thefp.com/p/fix-boeing-prosecute-executives-joe-nocera
Another cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat tried this BBBUUUTTTT… MUH TRUMP!!! deflection:
Yep, how many $ millions has trump been ordered to pay?
Good question, feckless Anonymous coward! How much has he been ordered to pay outside of New York? And/or in cases not being prosecuted by a prosecutor who got elected on a vow that when elected they would take him out?
Is that a fair question, Tovarisch Anonymous?
I’m confused. If the case is going to a jury, why issue a “summary judgment” in the plaintiff’s favor?
I strongly support defamation law, and that Sullivan is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment’s right of all citizens to equal protection under the law. Sullivan invented a vaguely-defined underclass of “public persons” whose reputational rights were demoted — with absolutely nothing in the Constitution hinting at that distinction. Sullivan is the reason why our political leadership choices are so limited, and seem to tend toward overconfident narcissists — normal people with highly-developed leadership skills simply refuse to subject themselves and their families to the disrespectful journalistic hedonism unleashed by Sullivan. Sullivan planted the seeds for activist journalists. It needs to be revisited by Congress.
Jonathan seems to uphold defamation as a carve out to free speech. I wonder where he stands on Sullivan?
Questions are fine. Answers require a subscription which provides access to JT via WhatsApp where sobscribers talk about fashion trends, braiding of hair, and exchange family recipes. Seeing you are not a subscriber, nor are part of the Brethren, you should stick to the article posted and discuss the facts of the case therein. Unless of course you are sealioning / trolling
/s
Sullivan was a 5-4 decision
4 justices wanted to gut defamation law entirely especially for public figures
The judge’s summary judgement is the consequence of a motion by the defendants
The defendants said as a matter of law even if the contested facts are found against us this case should be dismissed
The judge said as a matter of law if the jury finds the facts alleged the defendant has defamed the plaintiff
That is how motions for summary judgement work
The 180 page ruling is driven by the legal claims made by the defendant in their motion for summary judgement as well as the judge presented the contested facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs to determine if there is enough of a case to proceed
All 9 justices in Sullivan were going to find that king could not legally be tried for defamation
The 5 justices that wrote Sullivan presented the most plaintiff friendly decision
The other 4 wanted to eliminate defamation for public figures entitlrely
It will go to the jury to determine the amount of damages, i.e., how much money the defendants have to pay to the plaintiff.
MSNBC and other cable outfits have hemorrhaged traditional viewership age categories. Their average aged viewer(those that remain) are close to 70 years old. those who remain are those who loyally turn on their TV to hear what they want to hear. There is no integrity left and their product is poor and untrustworthy.
So people are leaving them in droves, searching for independent sources for their information.
I am glad they are under scrutiny and if these claims were falsely made, they should go by the way of the Dominion lawsuit.,
Newsnation now has a larger viewing audience than CNN.
If you won’t see things my way, then you deserve to die in a great cataclysm.
Thank you for providing evidence you have a defective mind.
You are a demon in human form that deserves to die a terrible death.
You have mental health issues and should be seen by a whole team of psychologists, medicated, not given access to sharp objects, not allowed to operate heavy machinery, reproduce, own property, or vote.
Upstate, he needs to see a team of shrinks in Vienna and then spend a few years in a rubber room.
When I was younger, long ago, India had a program where you would receive a free transistor radio for getting a vasectomy. Is this such a bad idea to neuter and spay an invasive species before allowing them to invade your Nation? Islam proclamation is, if we can’t beat you by the sword we will beat you by the womb, Nikiita Kruschev Communist proclamation, we will beat you from within. I guess truly implementing a program like this would cut down on the number of box apartment rentals they’ve built everywhere. Mass migration is real, interesting how the powers have built out in front of it.
Could it be that Putin is waging war against Ukraine to compensate for his erectile dysfunction?
Interesting. The fact that MSNBC and the editors had reservations about the story that does not prove actual malice. The very fact that there were reservations and that they published the letter of the whistleblower who was the one making the allegations is not evidence of malice. Malice means it’s intentional and without reservation.
The Fox News Dominion case did involve actual malice because they repeatedly made the claims against dominion for months. Knowing how professor Turley is fond of posting half truths this article should be taken with a grain of salt.
The biggest clue?
“ She also found that MSNBC may have published the reports knowing that the allegations were false or with reckless disregard of the truth.“
“May” and “reckless disregard of the truth” must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However the judge points out that MSNBC and NBC had reservations and doubts about the credibility of the whistleblower. That does not show there was reckless disregard or maliciousness. The judge seems to be overreaching in her interpretation of the law. The judge is basically saying publishing hearsay with reservations can be considered evidence of malicious intent. That’s a big red flag. There’s going to be an appeal which seems to have a good chance of being overturned if MSNBC and NBC lose the case.
The judge is saying these are matters for a jury to determine, and not to be adjudicated via the granting of summary dismissal. There is a differenced between that and what you apparently glean. I’ve read the opinion – have you?
To say that a jury might reasonably find one way or another, and that allowing them to make that determination is the proper process, is not the same as outright judicial determination.
I have read the opinion. My point is Turley is making the case out to be a clear cut case of defamation. But the opinion does not ‘clearly’ say that. Yes, it’s ultimately up to the jury to determine if the defendant did defame the doctor, but as the judge noted there are still significant hurdles the plaintiff must overcome in order to convince a jury that he was intentionally defamed.
Outside of left wing nut land were stupid and biased judges bar defendants from putting on a defense or their constitutional right to a jury trial
It is always the case that denying a motion for summary judgment merely means the case can proceed to a jury
The hurdles that must be overcome is that the standard of proof is different
That is all
I summary judgement the judge determines whether if all contested facts favor the non moving party would the moving party prevail by law
A jury will decide if those disputed facts are proven to a more likely than not standard
MSNBC is in serious trouble
That is a hard point to defend, once made, since the article states in the first sentence that this proceeding concerned motions, and was not an actual judgement on the case itself. He quotes from the trial court, the laws in question, and the appellate court’s ruling. Should he avoid any of those?
>i>“May” and “reckless disregard of the truth” must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ignorant Svelaz George runs his big mouth until he says something stupid again.
He has had the different standards of proof for civil and criminal cases explained to him several times before and he still doesnt get it.
And he thinks that the judge finding sufficient evidence to allow the case to be heard by a jury can be appealed LOL.
If a jury finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was malice, then the judge’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to go to trial is validated.
Your honor, we STRONGLY object!
LMAO
There can be an appeal when a the defendant believes the judge’s interpretation of law is wrong.
Or when the judge is just a stupid poopy head.
George the malice standard is far more credible in this case than dvs
Fox reported dvs skeptically
MSNBC reported woolens allegations as fact
While it is improbable that dvs rigged the election even today it remains possible if unlikely further public statements by dvs made the reporting plausible officers in dvs made public statements to the effect that they would prevent trump from winning
Fox never should have settled they would have lots at trial as infowars and guilliani did
But that would have been reversed on appeal
This case is radically different
The doctor did not make himself a public figure
Nor did he make prior public statements that could lead one to conclude he was doing what was alleged
His conduct was not public conduct like an election is while he was a government contractor his personal actions as alleged were a private not public harm
If as was claimed he performed unnecessary surgeries that is a tort
This is not nearly the same as claims of election malfeasance which are a public harm
“George the malice standard is far more credible in this case than dvs
Fox reported dvs skeptically”
No it’s not. Fox reported DVS knowing full well it was not true. Did you forget the texts and emails presented by Dominion? For months Fox News spread known falsehoods about DVS. Dominion had a mountain of evidence against Fox.
The malice standard is less credible in this case. MSNBC had doubts about the story early on and this was during the course of a couple of weeks. Their reporting was clearly based and portrayed correctly as that from a whistleblower. Fox News knowingly continued to make false claims even after finding out the credibility of the claims was seriously undermined by their own fact checkers.
The standard of proof is more likely than not
This is not a criminal trial
When doubts are noted but the network decided to go with it anyway, there is no other conclusion that there was malicious intent on the part of Maddow and MSNBC. An honorable network wouldn’t have went with the story even expressing doubts before proceeding. Based on the article, there were enough individuals in decision making positions expressing serious doubt as the veracity of her story and when she wouldn’t even give a specific name, the intent to defame had to be part of the ultimate decision to proceed with broadcasting the lie. A responsible journalist or news organization will not proceed with a falsehood that can and will have ramifications once the lie is exposed and with evidence/receipts that the story was a lie. If I were chosen for the jury when the case goes to court, I probably wouldn’t be selected because any reasonable person who reads the article will come to the same conclusion. This proves once again that we, the public, need to understand that the talking heads at all of the cable outlets are not journalists, reporters, or anything close to what is honest investigations, interviews with enough individuals to verify the story but are individuals adhering to a specific political ideology. The true journalists and reporters no longer exist and this includes all of them, conservative or liberal, FOX or MSNBC, et al, two sides of the same coin.
Constitutional Confederate racist George tried out his tunnel vision in a “BBBUUUTTT…. MUH FOX!” moment of desperate deflection:
The Fox News Dominion case did involve actual malice because they repeatedly made the claims against dominion
Oh look – that judgement from an elected Soviet Democrat judge in Delaware while Delaware’s Lunch Bucket Joe also been elected as President Bribery Biden.
The decision you love that came down AFTER the decision that gave Rachael Mad Cow a pass on defamation, declaring that Mad Cow’s Soviet Democrat viewers were aware she made her living by lying to them about “Russia, Russia, Russia”, and therefore there was no defamation. Why? Because her viewers knew she was just maliciously lying about those she made her accusations about, so their opinion of her targets wasn’t changed.
Weird how the Soviet Democrat Delaware judge didn’t take the same view in the later FOX case. You know, stare decis, equal justice for all, and all that other legal stuff.
Know what else is weird? Both presiding judges were Soviet Democrats! The one who earlier gave Rachael Mad Cow a pass at about the same time ruled that Trump’s ‘Remain In Mexico” policy was unconstitutional! (unfortunately for her and Soviet Democrats, SCOTUS heard that)
All great Soviet Democrat legal minds think alike, don’t they Kluxxer George!
Where did you get your Internet Law Degree, George? The law school that never told you that Madison’s Notes On The Constitutional Conference was an actual thing?
MSNBC is singlehandedly trying (unintentionally) to gut Sullivan, and that may be a good thing. People like Rachel Maddow are no different than the clown that was sued to death over claiming little kids being shot in a school shooting was fake. We all, or at least non-progressives, are for free speech, but you cannot defame someone intentionally with malice and not have to pay the price.
“ If accusations against a plaintiff are “based entirely on hearsay,” “[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges.”
This is going to be a problem for the defendant. Plus the idea that “charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges” can be challenged on appeal.
The headline, “WHISTLEBLOWER: HIGH NUMBER OF HYSTERECTOMIES AT ICE DETENTION CTR.” and “COMPLAINT: MASS HYSTERECTOMIES PERFORMED ON WOMEN AT ICE FACILITY.” The fact that they reported the “whistleblower” is the one who accused the doctor of performing mass hysterectomies not NBC seems to be the weak point. Turley casually admitted this would be a problem if directly challenged. He didnt’ actually say it, but he clearly implied it.
Turley gladly implies that this is a clear case of defamation. But what the judge is actually saying in her 180 page ruling is that there are some issues that the plaintiff still has to prove in order to succeed in a jury trial. It’s still up to a jury to ultimately decide.
The headlines are theirs not the whistle blowers
This is very little different from the fox,infowars, or guilliani cases
Except that it is worse
Infowars reported false speculation that the plaintiff found emotionally harmful
But that is not the legal standard
There was no false statement impugning one of the plaintiffs
Guilliani made allegations that remain plausible to this day on a matter of great public interest in or related to legal proceedings and did not identify the plaintiffs except through security video in a government election fascillity
There are multiple defenses that the courts improperly barred
In the fox case dvs was acting as an agent of government -a government contractor they had made themselves into a public figure
And fox actually skeptically presented the claims
“In the fox case dvs was acting as an agent of government -a government contractor they had made themselves into a public figure
And fox actually skeptically presented the claims”
That’s categorically false. Fox continued to make false claims about dvs for almost a year. Dvs was still a private company. It was not a government contractor. All they did was provide the equipment. They did not run the equipment or participated in the counting of the votes.
George this was an msnbc motion for summary judgement
There were only two possible outcomes
The case proceeds to trial or it is dismissed
The judge determined that with all contested facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff because this is a defendant’s motion that the plaintiff had enough of a case to proceed to a jury
Nothing in the judges opinion binds the jury
That said msnbc is in deep trouble
Prof Turley does not mention that these stories were broadcast in September 2020, shortly before the Presidential election, and while some people were voting by mail. It reinforces the false “kids in cages” accusation leveled at Trump. Is this fact merely coincidental?
“Merely coincidental?” Sure, just as it’s “merely coincidental” that the sun rises in the east every single day.
When was the last time AOC cried at the border? These fake politicians being backed by fake media are so transparent and yet seem to be effective. The masses are asses.
Apparently less so, in both cases, than heretofore. It’s encouraging that more voters consider Faux Joe a greater threat to democracy than The Donald. Trust in “media” seems to be diminishing rapidly to a small set of low-information elites, who like the sound of the words they hear from Democrats, yet do not check on how the policies are affecting lives when put into practice.
Democrats used to say that rubes in red states vote Republican even though it is against their interests, but that has turned around completely. Blacks see the open border and the harm it is doing to them, Hispanics see the harm inflicted on their communities by open borders. Blacks and Hispanics see the progressive trans insanity and the abortion up to the 9th month and they don’t like it. Minorities and all working people see food prices, gas prices, rent and mortgage costs and KNOW that Biden has harmed them.
The party is over for Democrats, they are not the party of the working class, they are the party of Columbia and Harvard students, rich white suburban women and Hollywood elites.
The black community on Chicago south side are pissed at the left for putting illegals interests ahead of theirs. Several community centers have been taken over to house illegals, denying the at risk youths a safe place to congregate