Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

aps · 01-04-09, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

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.

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.

RightinNYC · 01-04-09, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

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.

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.

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