Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

JMak said:

Why do you hate the law?

Click to expand...

What about my post makes you think I hate the law?

aps said:

What about my post makes you think I hate the law?

Click to expand...

An individual has filed suit claiming the she has suffered some damage. You're not interested in permitting the case to be settled between the parties or in court. Instead, you've already called it frivolous. As well, your comments appear to suggest that so long as some facts are accurate, it doesn't matter if the paper publishes an article implying something not supported by those facts actually happened.

A, B, C, and D happened. Yet, you're comfortable with the media publishing an article drawing an implication not supported by those facts because a,b,c, and d did, in fact occur. Further, you're comfortable with denying an individual any recourse in the event that the article was inaccurate.

JMak said:

So you concede damages.

What do you think the damages are worth? Of course, if not $27 million?

Click to expand...

Assuming that the court finds in her favor, I'd say it's worth maybe $300K - $500K. Certainly not $27 million. That's even more than most people get from wrongful death lawsuits.

JMak said:

An individual has filed suit claiming the she has suffered some damage. You're not interested in permitting the case to be settled between the parties or in court. Instead, you've already called it frivolous. As well, your comments appear to suggest that so long as some facts are accurate, it doesn't matter if the paper publishes an article implying something not supported by those facts actually happened.

A, B, C, and D happened. Yet, you're comfortable with the media publishing an article drawing an implication not supported by those facts because a,b,c, and d did, in fact occur. Further, you're comfortable with denying an individual any recourse in the event that the article was inaccurate.

Click to expand...

You don't get it. You really don't. You seem to lack comprehension of what a claim for defamation entails. And I don't care to help you there. Bye bye

aps said:

You don't get it. You really don't. You seem to lack comprehension of what a claim for defamation entails. And I don't care to help you there. Bye bye

Click to expand...

This is typical, he explains it well, and then you accuse him of a comprehension problem, then say you won't explain it, then run.....


why?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

This is typical, he explains it well, and then you accuse him of a comprehension problem, then say you won't explain it, then run.....


why?

Click to expand...

How did he explain it? I pointed out that if she LOST her defamation suit, she would get NO damages. The court or the jury would determine that what the NYT did was not defamation. It's that simple, Reverend.

How he concluded that I hate the law is beyond me. It makes no sense to me. If the law is not on her side, she would not receive damages.

aps said:

How did he explain it? I pointed out that if she LOST her defamation suit, she would get NO damages. The court or the jury would determine that what the NYT did was not defamation. It's that simple, Reverend.



How he concluded that I hate the law is beyond me. It makes no sense to me. If the law is not on her side, she would not receive damages.

Click to expand...

You have a problem with it even going to court, no?

TheNextEra said:

It makes perfect sense to anyone with a brain.

Conservatives think that people who's health is affected by a doctor shouldn't be able to sue, but some broad that gets wrote about in the Times deserves millions. Gimme a break hypocrites.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% in favor of people suing doctors and winning when the doctor has done something that injured the plaintiff in a fashion that he should be responsible for.

I'm 100% opposed to people suing doctors when the doctor is not at fault.

I'm 100% in favor of people suing publishers and winning when the publisher has done something that injured the plaintiff in a fashion that they should be responsible for.

I'm 100% opposed to people suing publishers when the publisher is not at fault.

Clear enough for you?

aps said:

Yes, but the statements made by these former associates was corroborated.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they were corroborated by other people if they turn out to have been false. And as far as I can tell, nobody told the times that they were having an affair, which is what the NYT clearly and explicitly inferred.

Hatuey said:

27 million for somebody talking about conflicts of interests you might have had? Are people in this country even remotely serious anymore? :roll:

Click to expand...

She's a successful lobbyist in her prime who makes her living based on her reputation and her influence. She's also a human being with a family and friends. She wakes up one day and there's a front page story accusing her of seducing and ****ing a 72 year old senator in order to get favors.

You don't think that had a significant impact on her professional life, much less her personal life?

If the Times is found to have defamed her, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see an award in the mid seven figures to account for future lost wages alone.

RightinNYC said:

It doesn't matter if they were corroborated by other people if they turn out to have been false. And as far as I can tell, nobody told the times that they were having an affair, which is what the NYT clearly and explicitly inferred.

Click to expand...

I agree, but when the statements are corroborated by different people, it only helps the NYT in publishing the statements. The more corroboration there is, the more credible the story is.

I quoted this article earlier in this thread:

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University, said key to Iseman's case will be how the court defines her — as a public figure or a private figure. Public figures have to meet a higher standard of proof, and show malice by a news outlet.

Werhan also said the Times could be protected if it accurately quoted McCain's former aides about their perceptions of his relationship with Iseman.

“If all those statements are true, then it seems to me the Times is not at fault for reporting that,” Werhan said.


Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

Click to expand...

My point is that if the NYT accurately reported what these former associates said, and such statements were corroborated by others, it will be VERY tough for Iseman to prove that such statements were false. I don't think she can do it.

aps said:

I agree, but when the statements are corroborated by different people, it only helps the NYT in publishing the statements. The more corroboration there is, the more credible the story is.

I quoted this article earlier in this thread:

My point is that if the NYT accurately reported what these former associates said, and such statements were corroborated by others, it will be VERY tough for Iseman to prove that such statements were false. I don't think she can do it.

Click to expand...

Even if the court says that she's a public figure, it seems reasonable that the court could find there was actual malice here. The NYT's own public editor acknowledged that they were unsure of the truth of some of the implications that they made.

If the court doesn't find that she's a public figure, then all she has to prove is that the NYT was not reasonable in making its claims. The claims themself are defamation per se.

RightinNYC said:

Even if the court says that she's a public figure, it seems reasonable that the court could find there was actual malice here. The NYT's own public editor acknowledged that they were unsure of the truth of some of the implications that they made.

If the court doesn't find that she's a public figure, then all she has to prove is that the NYT was not reasonable in making its claims. The claims themself are defamation per se.

Click to expand...

Do you think they'll find she's a public figure? I believe they won't, but I'm curious what you think.

I think a finding of malice is pretty hard to prove. Ignorance/negligence isn't malice.

aps said:

Do you think they'll find she's a public figure? I believe they won't, but I'm curious what you think.

I think a finding of malice is pretty hard to prove. Ignorance/negligence isn't malice.

Click to expand...

I don't think they will find her to be a public figure, which should benefit her quite a bit. Even if they did, for "actual malice" she just has to show a reckless disregard for falsity, which I don't think is out of the question here.