Since 1964, a New York Times court case — New York Times v. Sullivan — set the media standard for “journalistic freedom.” The rabidly progressive Times just got nailed by their own precedent. The libel case resulted in a key Supreme Court decision supporting “freedom of the press.” The mega-dose of Karma comes from the irony that the Times established the “actual malice” standard for “press reports about public officials or public figures to be considered defamatory or libelous” which Project Veritas is using to sue them. They have a case, the Judge agrees, and a legal leg to stand on.
Malice in the media
In the legal world, there are always hoops to jump through. The “actual malice” standard is six feet off the ground and on fire.
It “requires the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case to prove the publisher of the statement knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.” The media has used it to publish just about anything they want and shrug it off.
Because a plaintiff’s burden of proof is so high and nearly impossible to prove, most media cases brought by the libeled parties go down in flames quickly. The Gray Lady just got beaten with her own purse. Undercover conservative radicals at Project Veritas scored an unbelievable huge win which gives them some stairs to get at the flaming hoop.
It also hangs the Grey Lady’s purse up on a hook for grabs if “punitive damages” kick in. With a little luck, James O’Keefe can garrote her with the purse strap as he snatches it away.
The New York Supreme Court ruled last week that Project Veritas has “sufficient evidence” that the Times might have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” in several posts hitting their work.
On Sunday, Jonathan Turley broke the news but the big media networks won’t touch the story. That’s because the New York Times isn’t the only outlet which might get hit by the splatter.
Reckless disregard
According to Justice Charles Wood in a decision which spanned a full sixteen pages, The media giant New York Times “might have been motivated by ‘actual malice’ and acted with ‘reckless disregard’ in several articles written by Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu.” The good news is that the case is still alive and can proceed into discovery.
A “Motion to Dismiss” is the first artillery salvo in a legal war fought with words flying through the air like bullets. Veritas made it through the hail of lead and came out smiling on the other side, standing tall. “The decision will allow the Project access to discovery which can be extremely difficult for a news organization.”
James O’Keefe is thrilled because he will be able to sit some powerful media personalities down in front of a camera and grill them with a blowtorch.
“This ruling means Project Veritas will now be able to put New York Times reporter Maggie Astor and New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions,” O’Keefe gloated. “Project Veritas will record these depositions and expose them for the world to see.” Stay tuned.
The way the judge spelled it out, “The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice.”
Because “there is a substantial basis in law to proceed,” Veritas can “conduct discovery and to then attempt to meet its higher standard of proving liability through clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.” They got stairs up to the bottom of the hoop but they still have to make it through without getting too singed on the way.
