iron_mike wrote:
i'll be curious to hear what the lawyers think, but this feels like a pretty long walk to me for the prosecution. i don't know us libel law, particularly, but some thoughts:
-the post didn't break this story - it broke on twitter, and had gone viral by the time they covered it.
-the burden of proof here seems large: they'll need to establish that the post knowingly wrote falsehoods
and that those falsehoods caused meaningful damage
and that the newsworthiness of the event did not outweigh the potential damage of their speculation.
-the statement includes all kinds of stuff ('liberal media mob') that is neither here nor there w/r/t the case and seems like it's there to establish moral indignation (which is a tricky play) or to blow dog whistles to garner support from some quarters (a safer play). similarly, it suggests the post 'bullied' him, which seems a bit silly: it's easy to disprove and not illegal regardless.
-given the previous point, perhaps the intention is to set up a gofundme for this thing.
-the damages feel outrageous. given that he's a teen, he can't yet reasonably claim that his income was negatively impacted, and unless he planned on being, say, a top-flight surgeon and has now been forever prevented from doing so, it's hard to claim that 250 million represents lost future income, either. is there other stuff here? has his family been threatened or something?
Repeaters, like the post, can be liable. The 250 million damages number is for shock value only. It's not a real number.
I still think retraction and possibly an apology will be among the relief they get. Family needs to restore their son's reputation. Labeling him a racist probably is defamation per se (per se means reputational harm presumed).
The kid is not a public figure, not even a limited one as far as I can tell. He didn't knowingly inject himself into anything. He just stood there. That will lessen the liability standard of proof.
Interesting timing, the filing of this suit alongside Justice Thomas' criticism of the NY Times v. Sullivan case (which imposed an actual malice standard, particularly for media defendants, when matters of public interest are concerned).
I doubt this case gets that far or even close. Probably will settle pretty quickly. Bad facts for the media defendants. Bad facts often make bad law. Some may fight depending on what they actually reported (yet, probably ultimate settle in exchange for retraction). False fact that is published and injures reputation is actionable. Opinion is not actionable. Defamation in the US is a very complex and nuanced area of law given its intersection with the 1A.
