• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Melania Trump wins damages from Daily Mail over 'escort' allegation

TheGoverness

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
42,306
Reaction score
60,945
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Link is here.

The UK's Daily Mail newspaper has agreed to pay damages and costs to the first lady of the United States over an article about her modelling career.

The newspaper had reported allegations that Melania Trump once worked as an escort, but later retracted its article.

The story was published during the US election campaign last year.

Mrs Trump accepted damages and an apology from the newspaper at London's High Court.

She filed her lawsuit in February, seeking damages of $150m (£120m). The amount accepted by Mrs Trump was not disclosed in court.

However, a report from the Reuters news agency said the settlement was worth less than $3 million, including legal costs and damages, citing an anonymous source familiar with the case.

In its apology, the Daily Mail acknowledged it had published "allegations that she provided services beyond simply modelling."

"We accept that these allegations about Mrs Trump are not true," the newspaper said.

A lawyer for Mrs Trump told the London court the allegations "strike at the heart of the claimant's personal integrity and dignity".
Click to expand...

Good for Melania.
 
joG said:
Power too her!
And tell you what. You can call me a prostitute, if you will afterwards pay me $3 millions.
Click to expand...

For $3 million I'll even let you treat me like a prostitute.

TheGoverness said:
Link is here.
Good for Melania.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Daily Mail, one of the world's, and DP's #1 sources of fake news for people who can't be bothered with facts. I hope they get hit with a lot more from other cases, this is ultimately a drop in the bucket.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
For $3 million I'll even let you treat me like a prostitute.



Ah yes, the Daily Mail, one of the world's, and DP's #1 sources of fake news for people who can't be bothered with facts. I hope they get hit with a lot more from other cases, this is ultimately a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

OK, but then you would, in fact, be a prostitute - so don't say that in court. ;)
 
Im surprised the Daily Mail doesnt get sued more often...
 
3 million...man that won't cover the extra security costs of her not living in the White House....
 
Ikari said:
3 million...man that won't cover the extra security costs of her not living in the White House....
Click to expand...

typical post.

So what do you think about the article itself instead of taking cheap shots?
this is the exact reason we have libel suits.
 
ludin said:
typical post.

So what do you think about the article itself instead of taking cheap shots?
this is the exact reason we have libel suits.
Click to expand...

I think she's a public figure, so there's a lot you can get away with. But the "newspaper" made some rather outrageous allegations and has agreed to pay 3 mil for it.

Now...about paying extra security costs....
 
joG said:
Power too her!
And tell you what. You can call me a prostitute, if you will afterwards pay me $3 millions.
Click to expand...

Should be 'Power to her!

So now you can sue me for being cruel by pointing out that you are grammatically challenged.
 
PoS said:
Im surprised the Daily Mail doesnt get sued more often...
Click to expand...
They have very intimidating lawyers and pay out-of-court settlements with gagging clauses.

Also, a lot of people won’t want to go through a difficult and expensive court case that the tabloids will only use to repeat the libellous statements with the “it was said in court” protection.
 
The money doesn't matter. No amount of money can buy good character. Their retraction and apology is worth far more than the money.
 
countryboy said:
Yeah, so is the liberal media.
Click to expand...

Pound for pound I'll put Huffpo, Mother Jones, and the Atlantic up against The Washington Examiner, Breitbart, and The Daily Caller any day of the week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
So you can't just make up stories about people?
Click to expand...
Ikari said:
I think she's a public figure, so there's a lot you can get away with. But the "newspaper" made some rather outrageous allegations and has agreed to pay 3 mil for it.
Click to expand...
It might be important to note that the award was given in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom has a very different jurisprudence regarding the concept of libel than the US does. Where as the UK places an extremely high value on a person's reputation, the US weighs it in favor of free speech- especially speech about public persons.

My bet is that in the US, she would have lost unless she could prove the paper knew the claim was false, yet still published it. Proving some one's state of mind is very difficult. This is espescially so when US papers cant be compelled to reveal their "sources".
 
Last edited:
Sweden said:
Should be 'Power to her!

So now you can sue me for being cruel by pointing out that you are grammatically challenged.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing it out. I have duly forwarded the email to my Lawyer.

;)
 
Winston said:
Pound for pound I'll put Huffpo, Mother Jones, and the Atlantic up against The Washington Examiner, Breitbart, and The Daily Caller any day of the week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course you would, they support your blind ideology, and partisan hackery, lol.
 
countryboy said:
Of course you would, they support your blind ideology, and partisan hackery, lol.
Click to expand...

Leaving my politics out of it, I'm saying I'll put them up against the unholy Trump trinity. Meaning, who publishes more fake news, who misleads their readers, and who puts ideology over reality, day in & day out.

Find 3 articles that you believe are fake news from Huffpo, etc. and I'll find mine from the unholy trinity of right wing news, and we'll see who is more dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cryptic said:
It might be important to note that the award was given in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom has a very different jurisprudence regarding the concept of libel than the US does. Where as the UK places an extremely high value on a person's reputation, the US weighs it in favor of free speech- especially speech about public persons.

My bet is that in the US, she would have lost unless she could prove the paper knew the claim was false, yet still published it. Proving some one's state of mind is very difficult. This is espescially so when US papers cant be compelled to reveal their "sources".
Click to expand...

I would say she would have won her case in the US as well.
They knew for a fact that the article was false and published it anyway.

while more difficult to prove in the US this was blatant.
 
countryboy said:
Of course you would, they support your blind ideology, and partisan hackery, lol.
Click to expand...

Vs. publications you prefer, which support your blind ideology, and partisan hackery, lol.

haha...why does anyone even bother debating sources anymore?
 
ludin said:
I would say she would have won her case in the US as well.
They knew for a fact that the article was false and published it anyway.

while more difficult to prove in the US this was blatant.
Click to expand...

Can you prove they knew it was false? Especially after their un named sources assured them it was true and are continuing to assure them it was true?

In short, unless the publisher admits knowing slander either in a boast or through internal communications, a public person winning a libel suit in the US is probably near impossible. Likewise, the US definition of 'journalist' is very broad. Hillary Clinton as First Lady can quickly tell Melania as First Lady that this is true.
 
Cryptic said:
Can you prove they knew it was false? Especially after their un named sources assured them it was true and are continuing to assure them it was true?
Click to expand...
ethical journalism states that they have a job to do due diligence and vet the story and the information. this is the same reason that dan rather fried himself.

In short, unless the publisher admits knowing slander either in a boast or through internal communications, a public person winning a libel suit in the US is probably near impossible. Likewise, the US definition of 'journalist' is very broad. Hillary Clinton as First Lady can quickly tell Melania as First Lady that this is true.
Click to expand...

it was fairly obvious to anyone that did an ounce of vetting that the story wasn't true.
so they knowingly published false information.
 
ludin said:
ethical journalism states that they have a job to do due diligence and vet the story and the information. this is the same reason that dan rather fried himself.
Click to expand...

Journalists are not legally required to be ethical.

Dan 'fried' Rather was given an administrative punishment by his employer via termination. George Bush did not win a libel suit against neither him nor his employer. In the end, proving that Dan Rather knew the material was false is near impossible.
 
Cryptic said:
Journalists are not legally required to be ethical.

Dan 'fried' Rather was given an administrative punishment by his employer via termination. George Bush did not win a libel suit against neither him nor his employer. In the end, proving that Dan Rather knew the material was false is near impossible.
Click to expand...

actually there is.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

if they aren't then they can face libel suits.
 
ludin said:
actually there is.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

if they aren't then they can face libel suits.
Click to expand...

The SPJ is a private organization and its rules of conduct do not constitute law. Rather the pertinent case law states that libel suits are near impossible to win in the US, especially when concerning public persons.

Example:

- My blog makes me a journalist.
- My un named sources assure me that Trump did "X". I uhmm.... sincerely think they are telling the truth
- No, I won't name my sources.
- I never joined the SPJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom