[Trang Ánh Nam] New comment on Todd McMurty says: "we cannot tolerate a media est....

Trang Ánh Nam has left a new comment on your post "Todd McMurty says: "we cannot tolerate a media est...":

SANDMANN PLACED INTO NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT

One of the key issues threatening the suit's survival is whether or not Sandmann is a private figure, as his attorneys claim, or a limited-purpose public figure. That type of public figure was described by the Supreme Court in a 1974 ruling as someone who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" and therefore "invite attention and comment."

The designation is important because, if Sandmann is ruled to be the latter, his attorneys will have to clear a higher bar and prove The Washington Post acted with actual malice against him when it published a "series of false and defamatory print and online articles" about the Covington incident, as opposed to simply proving the newspaper's negligence.

"First, Nick Sandmann is a private individual so we only have to prove negligence," McMurtry said. "However, if a ruling were to be different and they were to consider him an involuntary public figure and we had to prove malice, we would be able to do that because the Washington Post is a weaponized news outlet that used its power and strength to destroy Nick Sandmann's reputation."

He added: "And they did that without adequate and appropriate levels of journalistic integrity and reporting and that in itself is malicious. So, I feel comfortable with either standard."

The lawsuit, filed in a Kentucky district court this week, accuses the newspaper of fanning the flames of the controversy, claiming it "effectively provided a worldwide megaphone to Phillips and other anti-Trump individuals and entities to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the President."

Legendary lawyer Alan Dershowitz, currently a Felix Frankfurter professor of law, emeritus, at Harvard Law School, told The Hill on Wednesday he agrees Sandmann is a private individual.

"This kid is not a public figure," he told the website. "He didn't choose to run for office, he's a kid in school who is applying for colleges and his reputation has been diminished in the eyes of some, and I think you have to distinguish between a high school kid and somebody who is the President of the United States, or a governor of a state or a justice of the Supreme Court.

Dershowitz added he believes Sandmann's attorneys "have a significant case" and that he is "interested to see what the Post says and how it justifies reporting that turned out to be less than accurate."

But if it came down to having to prove actual malice, then Sandmann's legal team faces a tougher road, experts say.

"They got a big, big hurdle to overcome and that is the standard of proving actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth," Frederick M. Lawrence, a distinguished lecturer at Georgetown Law and secretary and CEO of The Phi Beta Kappa Society, told Fox News.

"My hunch on this… even if [The Washington Post] got it wrong, they did not recklessly get it wrong and, as a result, they will prevail," Lawrence added.

He compared discussion about the Covington lawsuit to the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, in which, the Bill of Rights Institute says, the Supreme Court "held that the First Amendment protects newspapers even when they print false statements, as long as the newspapers did not act with 'actual malice.'"

"The whole reason we have this heightened standard is this is not supposed to be a 'tie goes to the runner' proposition," Lawrence told Fox News.

Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.



Posted by Trang Ánh Nam to Trang Ánh Nam at February 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM