 |
|
NYT Attorneys Claim Words Don't Have 'Meaning' In Attempt to
Posted on: July 27, 2022 at 19:35:14 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
70270
Member For:
21.01 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Avoid Discovery in Project Veritas Defamation Case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvPbqmQh_o&t=3s
Project Veritas has revealed notable filings in our ongoing defamation suit with the New York Times which should raise some eyebrows, including the argument that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” have a “precise meaning that is readily understood.”
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:
* In an update regarding its defamation suit against the New York Times surrounding footage of illegal ballot harvesting in Minnesota, Project Veritas revealed that in their appellate brief, the New York Times’ attorneys argued that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” has a “precise meaning that is readily understood.”
* In their appeal, the NYT’s attorneys also responded to the New York Supreme Court’s suggestion that a reader might read the news section of the New York Times expecting news, the Times argued “the lower court offered no support for its conclusions or the novel obligation it created.” This argument contradicts the Times’ own policies which prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion into stories as Project Veritas’ attorney, Libby Locke, argued in a response.
* Also notable was an attempt by lawyers for the Times to decry the use of anonymous sources despite the Project Veritas video in question naming sources and the fact that the New York Times uses anonymous sources so often that it penned an editorial called “Why does the New York Times use anonymous sources?”
* The New York Times’ Motion to Dismiss Project Veritas’ defamation lawsuit was denied by the NY Supreme Court and the NYT has opted to appeal that decision.
You can watch the full video by CLICKING HERE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvPbqmQh_o&t=3s
NYT legal update thumb.jpg
The Times continues to argue their reporting was merely non-actionable opinion, claiming that “[n]either the word ‘deceptive’ nor the word ‘verifiable’ has a precise meaning that is readily understood.”
The Times also pushed back on New York Supreme Court Justice Wood’s contention that reporting news in the news section (as opposed to opinion) is a “novel obligation” which the “lower court offered no support for.”
In a response, Project Veritas’ Attorney Libby Locke explains that the New York Times themselves created this so-called “novel obligation”:
The substance and context of the statements – in particular, the fact that they appeared in Times news stories where The Times’ own policies prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion – could allow a reasonable reader to conclude that the statements were conveying facts about Veritas.
In the video reviewing the merits of the lawsuit, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe closed with a line from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s criticism of the notable media defamation case, New York Times v. Sullivan:
The published falsehoods are on a scale so great, “it has come to leave far more [Americans defamed] without redress than anyone could have predicted.”
Stay tuned as we wait for the Appellate Division to decide the future of this case.
In Truth,
Project Veritas Team
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvPbqmQh_o&t=3s
Project Veritas has revealed notable filings in our ongoing defamation suit with the New York Times which should raise some eyebrows, including the argument that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” have a “precise meaning that is readily understood.”
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:
* In an update regarding its defamation suit against the New York Times surrounding footage of illegal ballot harvesting in Minnesota, Project Veritas revealed that in their appellate brief, the New York Times’ attorneys argued that neither the words “deceptive” nor “verifiable” has a “precise meaning that is readily understood.”
* In their appeal, the NYT’s attorneys also responded to the New York Supreme Court’s suggestion that a reader might read the news section of the New York Times expecting news, the Times argued “the lower court offered no support for its conclusions or the novel obligation it created.” This argument contradicts the Times’ own policies which prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion into stories as Project Veritas’ attorney, Libby Locke, argued in a response.
* Also notable was an attempt by lawyers for the Times to decry the use of anonymous sources despite the Project Veritas video in question naming sources and the fact that the New York Times uses anonymous sources so often that it penned an editorial called “Why does the New York Times use anonymous sources?”
* The New York Times’ Motion to Dismiss Project Veritas’ defamation lawsuit was denied by the NY Supreme Court and the NYT has opted to appeal that decision.
You can watch the full video by CLICKING HERE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvPbqmQh_o&t=3s
NYT legal update thumb.jpg
The Times continues to argue their reporting was merely non-actionable opinion, claiming that “[n]either the word ‘deceptive’ nor the word ‘verifiable’ has a precise meaning that is readily understood.”
The Times also pushed back on New York Supreme Court Justice Wood’s contention that reporting news in the news section (as opposed to opinion) is a “novel obligation” which the “lower court offered no support for.”
In a response, Project Veritas’ Attorney Libby Locke explains that the New York Times themselves created this so-called “novel obligation”:
The substance and context of the statements – in particular, the fact that they appeared in Times news stories where The Times’ own policies prohibit reporters from injecting their opinion – could allow a reasonable reader to conclude that the statements were conveying facts about Veritas.
In the video reviewing the merits of the lawsuit, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe closed with a line from Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s criticism of the notable media defamation case, New York Times v. Sullivan:
The published falsehoods are on a scale so great, “it has come to leave far more [Americans defamed] without redress than anyone could have predicted.”
Stay tuned as we wait for the Appellate Division to decide the future of this case.
In Truth,
Project Veritas Team
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
NYT Attorneys Claim Words Don't Have 'Meaning' In Attempt to - JeffB MU - 7/27 19:35:14