There is a major verdict out of Texas where a mother and an attorney were ordered to pay millions for perpetuating an alleged hate crime hoax that was eagerly spread by the mainstream media. Asher Vann, a minor at the time, was labeled a racist maniac who tortured SeMarion Humphrey, his black classmate, with other classmates. After the jury found that the allegations constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the same media that spread the story remained conspicuously silent. Crickets.
Major media outlets from NBC to CBS to the Daily Mail published the account of how Humphrey was tortured, shot with BB guns, and forced to drink urine during a sleepover. The NAACP and Black Lives Matter protested the lack of action from officials ignoring the alleged racist attack.
Good Morning America aired a segment featuring ABC host Linsey Davis, who promoted a GoFundMe account that raised approximately $120,000 for “therapy and private schooling.” In her interviews, Humphrey’s mother, Summer Smith, called Vann “evil” and described his depravity to enabling reporters like Linsey Davis.
Some, however, were not convinced. Washington Free Beacon reported that Smith spent less than $1,000 of the donated funds toward her son’s schooling while spending funds on items including a designer dog, dining, travel, beauty products, liquor and vapes.
Parents rallied around the Humphrey family and held events at the school.
Eventually, the case against Vann was submitted to a grand jury, despite later testimony by Plano Police Department officer Patricia McClure that she did not believe there was probable cause for any charge. Given the pressure campaign, it was given to a grand jury anyway. The grand jurors then refused to indict.
Vann sued and testified that the alleged racist act occurred at a camp that was caught in a snowstorm. Unsupervised, the teenagers engaged in dumb games and pranks. He said that, after unsuccessfully searching for small game, they decided to shoot each other. All of the kids were wearing thick clothing and shot each other with the BB guns for fun. He testified that Humphrey participated in the game with everyone else in both being shot and shooting others.
The urine was described as a prank that was played on various boys, according to Vann, but no one actually drank from the cup.
Under the common law, the elements of the tort of an intentional infliction of emotional distress require a plaintiff to show that the defendant “(a) intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff considered outrageous and intolerable in that it offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (b) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and (c) that severe emotional distress resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant’s conduct.”
A racially diverse jury handed down a verdict against Humphrey’s mother and the family attorney, Kim Cole. The inclusion of the lawyer in the verdict makes this a relatively rare case.
Smith and Cole were ordered to pay $3.2 million in damages to Vann, now an adult in college. Both the mother and the lawyer were ordered to pay $1,599,000.00.
The case raised obvious analogies to other cases that were eagerly promulgated by the media but later disproven, such as the Jussie Smollett hoax.
The Smollett story of MAGA-associated racists roaming the streets of Chicago was irresistible as politicians like Nancy Pelosi and others piled on. ABC’s Robin Roberts gave Smollett an interview that was breathtaking in its lack of substantive questions or even curiosity about glaring red flags in his account. Roberts described Smollett as “bruised but not broken” and nodded as he described his narrow escape from being lynched in America. She concluded the interview with “Beautiful, thank you, Jussie.”
The Texas case followed the same trajectory as the media built up the story and then went silent as countervailing facts were produced by the family.
Once again, the role and liability of counsel Cole is particularly interesting. We discussed a claim of defamation by counsel in the Depp-Heard case.
Attorneys are protected by absolute privilege in court in making harmful and even false statements. This privilege is best stated in the Restatement of Law (Second) of Torts section 586 “to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceedings.”
However, it also means that “statements made during an occasion outside a judicial proceeding are not covered.” Thus, while “[t]he duties and actions of a lawyer in representing a client are not confined to judicial proceedings,” the court ruled that interviews with a reporter would fall outside of the privilege. Most courts reject the notion of an absolute privilege while considering a more limited possible privilege for out-of-court statements. See Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 182 A.2d 54, 58 (1962) (the “absolute privilege will not attach to counsel’s extrajudicial publications, related to the litigation, which are made outside the purview of the judicial proceeding”).
Likewise, actions by counsel can be deemed as the intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as privacy violations. This can be a dangerously fluid line, since all litigation causes some degree of emotional distress, particularly in tort cases, where reputations are attacked. Moreover, lawyers often assist clients in seeking donations to GoFundMe accounts, which may help defray legal fees. Such public advocacy, however, entails a greater risk of liability.
The key in this case was the actions taken outside of the court as well as the alleged falsity of the underlying representations.
The targeting of a minor is particularly notable in this case and raises memories of the disgraceful media attacks on Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media continued to attack him.
The Vann case is likely to be reviewed by many lawyers outside Texas. It is a case that could be replicated in future cases involving lawyers accused of fueling reckless or inflammatory public claims. The fact that the damages were evenly divided between the mother and the lawyer shows the level of culpability that the jury assigned to the role of the lawyer.
Here is the jury verdict form: Jury-Verdict
The silence after the facts have been corrected seems to be a result of low attention span for the readers, viewers or internet clickers. If more articles were investigated prior to presentation then theses kinds of suits may not happen and perhaps increase the attention span of the public. The attention span requires the instant news and thus attention clicks, advertising dollars and paychecks.
In the turmoil of The Washington Post and CBS, I would hope that they take on more investigative and detailed reports to present to the audiences. In other words become real journalists reporting the actual news with the others filling the instant flash by articles.
I for one would love to have that kind of information which I find this site to be providing. Not only is the information that Professor Turley presents but the comments section almost always has comments that invite further investigation and learning.
Next, the family needs to go after the fake news media.
Media? Singular or plural? Who specifically? Who’s gonna pay? Which venue?
Are we at the intersection of Repressive Tolerance and CRT? It sure seems so.
And why does nobody, even professor Turley talk about the Frankfurt School’s role in all these events?
A free press is essential. I’m not arguing otherwise.
But let’s think about this as a system. What is the output we expect from journalism? Truth. Verified facts. Timeliness. Ethics. And corrections that are just as visible as the original accusation.
If that’s the output, then the process has to produce it.
And credentials should matter.
If someone wants to run sensational stories with minimal verification, that’s their lane. But that’s not the same thing as being credentialed to question government officials in the White House briefing room.
Access should be tied to standards.
If you’re going to stand in front of the country and question people in power, you ought to meet the highest journalistic standards.
Advocacy journalism is a different system. It’s activism. It may have a place in public debate, but it’s not the same as reporting meant to inform citizens.
Standards aren’t censorship. They’re what keep a free press worthy of the trust it depends on.
Standards are censorship.
Nearly 80% of Americans do not trust the MSM, yet and yet argue that a “free press” exists. You exist in some time warp.
Fact is there was never such a thing as a free press. In any society in world history.
All press is political. Always was, always will be.
To argue otherwise just shows how delusional one can be. Which you are.
Censorship is a verb. It’s an action. It’s the government stopping someone from speaking.
Standards are a noun. They’re a measurement.
A standard doesn’t silence anyone. It simply measures whether someone qualifies for a particular level of access.
There’s a difference between a negative right and a positive privilege.
The First Amendment protects your negative right to speak. Government cannot shut you up.
But access to places like the White House briefing room or Air Force One is not a right. It’s access granted under certain qualifications. That’s a positive privilege.
Setting standards for access doesn’t touch anyone’s right to publish whatever they want. It just determines who gets special access to question power.
That’s not censorship. That’s qualification.
Journalism needs to save itself. It is a discipline. It is a specific craft that is essential to our society. The press is th eONLY industry protected in the first amendment. They should have a professional license to label themselves or a piece of work to be “journalism,” just like lawyers have the Bar, electricians, doctors, contractors are licensed. There should be standards of practice, prescribed actions in case of errors in reporting. Journalists need to come up with the proper standards for professionals practicing this craft. Without the label, they can write anything they want, they just cannot apply the label of “journalism” to the work, organization or themselves.
“Journalism needs to save itself. It is a discipline. ” Nope, a business. Washington is an example.
Wash. Post and NYT. That’s free press? Fox News, MSNOW… also free press?
It just occurred to me to wonder if our resident woke clown could possibly *be* Pussie Smell-it? Certainly a strong case can be made for apparent similarity of personalities…
Ah ha, we now have an adult in the room. I feel better already.
Objective truth is a bourgeois, racist concept anyway, right? Anything is righteous if being done to fight evil.
Got a specific evil in mind?
Professor Turley forgot to cite the case of the “reporter”/commentator that attacked the cute little kid that wore face paint to a football game and was called a racist little boy. The writer ended his career and I think even the publication went down.
Poetic justice:)
For some bizarre reason, you think that is relevant to the above case?
He literally mentioned the Sandmann case…
The “cute little kid” he mentioned, is not the Sandmann case.
Can one come up with a good reason for some intrepid reporter NOT investigating to find the hoax in order to break the counter story other than the desire to be part of the gang exposing how racist the country, and particularly Texas, is? It would not have taken much to get to the bottom of a story about bored boys engaging in silly behavior and yet none of the mainstream media did. Incidents like this just show how irredeemably broken our current media complex remains.
Sad, really.
“Can one come up with a good reason for some intrepid reporter NOT investigating to find the hoax in order…” Yes! Under staffed.
Or looking for bias confirmation, whether or not it reflects the truth
It’s more likely that they just don’t want to. The truth will counter their liberal bias.
I’m all for citizen journalists. However, they like the MSM have no ethics.
“a good reason for some intrepid reporter NOT investigating to find the hoax in order to break the counter story”
You probably have attributed the motivation correctly, but I am forced to add my observation that, in addition to political bias, there is a tremendous amount of endemic laziness in news organizations, and I do not exclusively restrict that to leftist media. The internet is rife with imposters posing as reporters who blithely and blindly copy what they have read somewhere in hopes of finding a new audience that will give them the credit for it. This comes down as far as the level of local news; I see it where I am, and find it disappointing and highly discouraging.
Laziness? Maybe the editor made a decision to nix a story for business reasons. Were you ever employed in a “news organization”? I’ll answer for you. No!
But you know all about the industry’s inner workings. You saw a lot of movies I’m guessing. Or was it Lou Grant re-runs?
“The case raised obvious analogies to other cases . . .”
Including the most horrific, unjust one of all: The Duke lacrosse hoax.
It is shocking that to this day, the pot-banger of all media pot-bangers — Nancy Grace — is still considered a legitimate source for anything.
Maybe you should destroy her reputation.
The publication of speculative charges is a calculated maneuver designed to inflate audience numbers. These entities perform a hollow ‘compassion for the victim’ to burnish their brand, knowing full well that while the accusations will eventually fade, the ‘good guy’ image remains. Even as litigation ruins lives over years, these organizations are unfazed; they simply treat the cost of lawsuits as a routine operational expense.
Is your comment intended to indicate that all MSM reporting is a lie, a fraud intended to destroy peoples lives? Have you ever run a media business? Didn’t think so. I’m guessing you hate liberals.
You should write poetry for profit.
Clearly the demand for racial hate crimes exceeds the supply.
If America is such an irredeemably racist nation, why does it seem the majority of these turn out to be hoaxes in the end? And it’s not just Smollet. There was the “Nascar Noose” that turned out to just be a pull rope that had been there for years. Then there was the BLM activist at UDel who sent racist messages to herself in order to claim victimhood. It just goes on…
How many hate crimes took place since the great emancipator took control?
According to the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, fewer than 50 false hate crime reports were identified between 2016 and 2018 out of an estimated 21,000 total hate crime cases—representing less than 1% of all reports. This finding is supported by other analyses indicating that false reports are statistically negligible. Source: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu.
Majority you say? I guess Americans really do hate each other.
Out of your 21,000 hate crimes how many were against Jews and how many weren’t publicized (ignored) just because they were against Jews vs how much ink any claim against a so-called attack against a Black person received?
I am not saying that there aren’t the occasional hate crime against Blacks, but the hatred today is almost exclusively against Jews. Also, there is no “Islamophobia” happening to any extent at all. This is as fake as the Trans-genocide garbage.
How many Jews? Um… you asked the question, find an answer and let us know.
How is it you know with absolute certainty (put your hand in fire, that sort of thing) that the “trans-genocide” is fake?
If the population of trannies is 10 and 4 are killed, does that count as genocide or a hate crime?
Or were they in the wrong place at the wrong time and chalk it up to fate.
hard to evaluate your claim without specifics. were these 21,000 accusations or convictions?
and, the point he’s making you seem to have missed is not about the frequency of fakes but about the media and how loudly it reports accusations of hate crimes and how silently it reports findings of innocence. the reverse should be the case, don’t you think?
Evaluate you ask. Okay. Do you have the skills and experience to do that job? Or do we let the “free press” do the footwork?
Use the link after the comment. A bunch of students and lawyers did. Its convincing, depending on ones’ politics.
We see real racism on full display, but it’s by the far left. They never miss a chance to cry racism, while lying about what actually happened. Obama did nothing but fuel the flames of racial division, despite being the first black elected to the highest office in the land. Democrats in the media fan the flames. Outrage wins elections. “Let your rage fuel you.”
“We see real racism on full display, but it’s by the far left.” Nothing like some lying to start the day eh racist?
Isn’t your moniker “anti-racist” code for liberal?
Ah, the parasite is awake and ruining his own day with stupidity.
Can you post a link that “display” please.
OK, now next- will the media be opened up to be sued, for running with a story that had not been vetted for accuracy?
The media was sued by Sandman, but they failed to learn from that experience. Perhaps they will learn if they are sued again. Perhaps. They seem to be dug in to confirming their own prejudices.
Learn? Even worse, is that you have failed your fellow Americans… the black ones, the sick ones, the poor ones, just because they’re have a liberal mindset.
If anyone has dug in, its your biases and hate towards Americans.
“you have failed your fellow Americans… the black ones, the sick ones, the poor ones, just because they’re have a liberal mindset.”
Anyone who has what you would call a “liberal mindset” has already failed themselves.
One would think that after the Smollett and Sandman debacles, the MSM would have learned to investigate and report the facts more thoroughly and honestly. But alas, some reporters are unable or unwilling to put their own personal biases aside when reporting a story that can be twisted to confirm their biases. In this case, the jury got it right. It remains to be seen if lessons will be learned. Both the MSM and the attorney have failed in their respective professional obligations.
would have learned…
unable or unwilling to put their own personal biases aside…
can be twisted to confirm their biases…
You just described yourself and your MAGA cohorts.
Suze: Maybe, just maybe, those that run the MSM and their reporters do not have the intellectual ability to learn.
F politics, lets go after all lawyers. Even worse than politicians and liberals.
Anon is one the something.
Why is it I struggle with this statement by the Professor?
Is a Court Proceeding the exact place that “truth” is sought to include punishments for Perjury, Witnesses being sworn to tell the Truth, and evidence having to be proven to have proper chains of custody and certified expert analysis?
Why then should Lawyers be exempt from such requirements in the presentation of their case either as Prosecutors or Legal Counsel for the Defense?
I know every time I participated in a Court Proceeding or even when involved in taking sworn statements from potential witnesses….either my telling a lie or those witnesses swearing to the statement they provided me lying to me….all of us were compelled to be scrupulously honest in our utterances and conduct.
Perhaps the Professor could explain what he really said as I find what he offers to less than adequately informative to the casual reader much less some of us with a basis that should allow us to fully understand the full context of the matter.
That a mouthpiece with a big mouth runs risks outside of Court than they do inside the Courtroom is easy to understand. It is what latitude they enjoy inside the Court and its official proceedings is what puzzles me.
Ask the American Bar Association.