The Empire Strikes Back: Trump Campaign Sues New York Times
 

https://i.redd.it/lgmymawyibj41.jpg

Excellent! Hopetully they win big and use Carlos Slim's money against him.

Go get 'em!

Bill, serious question...

Do you believe it reasonable that I should be financially liable if I (knowingly) allow someone here to post a factually incorrect opinion regarding a public figure?

A simple yes/no will suffice...But if no, please explain why you feel one publisher should be held responsible, but not another.

:cert:

VB is a free speech platform, not a publisher, therefore you have qualified immunity from any kind of suit like this. Think about us like a community posting board.

Interesting topic. Wonder if you could sue Snopes for such ?

I'm not sure that a "factually incorrect opinion" actually exists. Generally, things are either a fact, or an opinion. My opinion may be stupid, far-fetched, not based on reality, or based on some stuff that I believe to be true but actually isn't, but it is not a fact, nor do I believe it can be factually wrong.

IMO, the line gets crossed when a publisher publishes something in such a way that the reader believes they are stating fact, and the story is completely wrong. Think of the local newspaper reporting that you personally robbed the XYZ bank on Main Street last Thursday at 2 pm. A cop reads that, finds out that the XYZ bank was, in fact, robbed at 2 pm last Thursday, so they truck on over to your house, arrest you, and charge you with a felony. You get jailed for a couple of days, go to your arraignment, and post your bail only to find out that for those couple of days you are in jail, word has been spreading like wildfire among your family, friends, business associates, potential customers, etc., that you recently robbed a bank and are currently in jail for it.

Assuming you didn't actually rob XYZ bank, would you be pissed? Would you not want some kind of restitution from the publisher?

It all comes down to whether they new the story to be false at the time it was published. Then you have to prove they new it.

http://www.tim-yvonne.com/gif/bell1.gif

biased "news" organizations need to be put on notice; if they conveniently don't check their sources.... then someone might just get in your face.




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBexcEdXkAU-jrh.jpg

The fake news media needs to be held accountable for their lies.:cert:

In the realm of legal remedy, there are only two entities at play here...The author, and the publisher.

An author creates content and submits it to the publisher. By virtue of operating this board, I certainly am a publisher. If I create and submit content, than I would also be the author.
You posted this thread...You are the author. This thread exists on my board, my hardware, my domain..That makes me the publisher.

As a publisher, you claim I'm immune of responsibility for author-submitted content, which thankfully is (mostly) correct. However, here you are supporting the fact another publisher is being sued for content submitted by an author.

So in your opinion why is legal remedy of libel being sought of the publisher rather than the author in this example? This is what I'm not understanding.
If Trump had a legitimate claim of libel (and as a public figure, I don't believe he does)...Why is the suit not directed at Max Frankel, the author of the libelous content?

:island14:

I would just be happy if someone would punch Nancy Pelosi in the nose.

If it is an opinion piece, there is no case for libel.

Factual pieces are normally reported by employees of the newspaper itself, so the newspaper owns the content, not the author. As a result, it falls on the publisher to confirm the veracity of their content before publishing.

The defense I heard this morning was that a party cannot be sued for expressing opinion.

So how is it that there are numerous suits brought against people that post negative reviews on social media like Yelp, etc?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/posting...-get-you-sued/

https://www.freshbooks.com/blog/can-...r-a-bad-review

Suppose it is my "opinion" someone stole from me and I present that opinion publicly?

I'd prefer a denture-popping throat punch. :seasix:

First, I would have liked Max to be sued personally, but I'm guessing Team Trump figured there was zero chance a NYC jury would ding Max personally. Also, since he couched his article as "opinion," I think he's free and clear, personally.

Second, here's the legal protection created specifically for platforms like VB:

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

You, as the site owner, are the absolute epitome of covered person and covered entity shrouded by this legal protection:

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

The NYT can claim this protection, too, but it's not a slam dunk case as it is with you when, say, I write, 'All Mustang owners are teh gay," here, because the NYT, by its own published admissions, knew Max's hit piece was bullshit, but printed it anyway. There's also the relationship there. Max wasn't some random drunk that rolled in off the street (like the average VB member, lol), he was the editor emeritus, and the NYT has a clear animus and demonstrated pattern of, concerted bias against Trump.

I think Trump's suit follows the same legal argument that the Sandy Hook families successfully used to sue InfoWars. We are a completely different animal.


Edit: Then again, IANAL. Maybe our forum legal beagle could weigh in on this?

Other than the "op-ed" pieces, "news" should not be "opinion". And that's the problem with MSM and most "journalists", is that they offer their "opinionated" version of the news.

But, that's just my opinion. :shrug:

Theft has a legal definition. If you falsely accuse someone of theft that's not just an opinion, it's untrue and probably libel (or slander depending on how you make the accusation).

I don't see the relevance.

It is my opinion person X stole from me...legal definition or not.

I had an article stolen - Fact

I think it was my neighbor - Opinion