Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

aps · 12-31-08, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

The NYT knew full well when they published the story that the suggestion of an affair would dominate the news cycle, not "Iseman and McCain attend a fundraiser together." Affairs are just too juicy to even hint at without some kind of evidence. Any normal person who read the article would think they just read a story about an affair, not about someone undermining McCain's campaign.

However, what might let the New York Times off the hook is the fact that McCain is a public figure and therefore the usual standards of defamation don't apply to him. I'm not sure how Iseman would factor into that since the story is about her too.

I don't believe the "public figure" issue would apply to her. That's what my gut says.

If the NYT accurately reported these former associates's statements, particularly when they were corroborated by separate sources, I don't see how she can claim that it's defamation. Obviously, I am no expert in this area. I'm sure her attorney is, so he must think there is something to this. I see her doing it because she wants people to think, "Ahh, she's filed a lawsuit. She must NOT have had an affair with McCain."

Kandahar · 12-31-08, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

I don't believe the "public figure" issue would apply to her. That's what my gut says.

If the NYT accurately reported these former associates's statements, particularly when they were corroborated by separate sources, I don't see how she can claim that it's defamation. Obviously, I am no expert in this area. I'm sure her attorney is, so he must think there is something to this. I see her doing it because she wants people to think, "Ahh, she's filed a lawsuit. She must NOT have had an affair with McCain."

I dunno...I think if she actually did have the affair, she'd be content to just let the story go away. I don't see why she'd want to bring it back into the spotlight if it was true.

But people have done crazier things.

aps · 12-31-08, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

I dunno...I think if she actually did have the affair, she'd be content to just let the story go away. I don't see why she'd want to bring it back into the spotlight if it was true.

But people have done crazier things.

Check this out. I am excited only because what he says is what my gut said to me.

Quote:

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.

“It's essentially hard to win a defamation suit,” Werhan added. “The idea is the First Amendment has its thumb on the press' side of scales.”

Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

It will be interesting to see what happens here.

aps · 12-31-08, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

How do you know is wasn't?

you can't just make up stories because your a dying left wing publication.....

I hope they win.

How do I know it's NOT a load of crap? I don't. However, when an article is written that provides specific names of some of the sources and notes that other sources's statements were corroborated, I tend to believe it. John Weaver is quoted as expressing concern about her presence. Do you want to dispute that? The burden is not on me to prove it's NOT a load of crap. It's on those who claim it is to prove it's a load of crap.

RightinNYC · 12-31-08, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Here's the part of the article that discusses her:

They are alleging that Iseman and McCain attended a fundraiser together. They point out that they flew back together on a plane owned by Paxon Communications. I assume those facts can be substantiated. Additionally, the NYT discusses Information provided by "former associatiates" and point out that such information was corroborated by others.

Based on my review of the article, the NYT has sources for the above information. They quote a statement by John Weaver expressing concern about Iseman undermining the campaign.

I don't see how she stands to win this lawsuit. I really don't.

You don't have to explicitly say something to libel someone. If I say that there are allegations that you smoke crack in 7-11 parking lots, but that you deny it, I can still lose my ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

How do I know it's NOT a load of crap? I don't. However, when an article is written that provides specific names of some of the sources and notes that other sources's statements were corroborated, I tend to believe it. John Weaver is quoted as expressing concern about her presence. Do you want to dispute that? The burden is not on me to prove it's NOT a load of crap. It's on those who claim it is to prove it's a load of crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

This damaged her health? When people say this crap, it makes me sick.

I don't see how she can win this. If the NYT accurately reported that some of McCain's aides genuinely worried about their relationship, how is this defamation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

I don't believe the "public figure" issue would apply to her. That's what my gut says.

If the NYT accurately reported these former associates's statements, particularly when they were corroborated by separate sources, I don't see how she can claim that it's defamation.

IIRC, accurately reporting what someone else says doesn't mean they can't be liable for libel. If someone says a malicious lie about you and I quote them in my newspaper, you can sue both them and my paper for defamation - them for saying it originally and me for reprinting it.

TheNextEra · 12-31-08, 10:11 AM

So let me get this straight. Conservatives complain about all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors, but then support this crap? Gimme a break.

RightinNYC · 12-31-08, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

So let me get this straight. Conservatives complain about all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors, but then support this crap? Gimme a break.

You're right, the two are EXACTLY the same.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 12-31-08, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

So let me get this straight. Conservatives complain about all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors, but then support this crap? Gimme a break.

And next week on odd ball associations that make no sense.......

TheNextEra · 12-31-08, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

And next week on odd ball associations that make no sense.......

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.

aps · 12-31-08, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

You don't have to explicitly say something to libel someone. If I say that there are allegations that you smoke crack in 7-11 parking lots, but that you deny it, I can still lose my ass.

IIRC, accurately reporting what someone else says doesn't mean they can't be liable for libel. If someone says a malicious lie about you and I quote them in my newspaper, you can sue both them and my paper for defamation - them for saying it originally and me for reprinting it.

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

12-31-08, 10:11 AM	#16
TheNextEra Sage Join Date: Jun 2006 Last Seen: Today 09:40 AM Posts: 5,088 Thanks: 73 Thanked 1,255 Times in 827 Posts Lean: Slightly Liberal Gender:	Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper So let me get this straight. Conservatives complain about all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors, but then support this crap? Gimme a break.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aps For This Useful Post:
Kandahar, Middleground

The Following User Says Thank You to TheNextEra For This Useful Post:
aps