Rachel Maddow and Her Co-Stars Made 'Verifiably False' Statements About a Doctor They Called the 'Uterus Collector.' Now His $30 Million Lawsuit Is Headed For Trial.

Washington Free Beacon ^

[Tench_Coxe]

NBCUniversal is headed for trial after a judge ruled in favor of a Georgia doctor who MSNBC’s biggest stars accused of performing "mass hysterectomies" on women at a Trump-era immigration facility in Georgia. The judge ruled that Rachel Maddow, Nicolle Wallace, and Chris Hayes made "verifiably false" statements about the doctor, who is suing NBC for $30 million.

(snip)

The bar is high for plaintiffs to win a libel case because they need to prove that the defendant showed provable malice. In her ruling, Judge Wood wrote that NBCUniversal may not have engaged in actual malice.

[Tench_Coxe]

The last bit is not quite accurate. Private citizens also can show negligence. I din't think that doctor qualifies as a public figure.

[Jamestown1630]

I don’t understand. In what Universe is this not ‘provable malice’ if it’s a lie?

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

I thought the left was the party of Sterility and Death and Population control. You would expect a voluntarily "non reproducing person" like Maddow to back the "death to the unborn" initative rather than attack it.

That said, I hope the jury goes all "Rudy Guliani" on her.

[patriot torch]

They need to treat this on equal basis to the ruling imposed against Alex Jones.

[lula]

They did it to hurt him, that’s malice.

[NWFree]

Fake News makes verifiably false statements every day 24-7 on cable

[Newtoidaho]

How awesome would it be to see madcow bankrupted and living in a box under a bridge.

[heartwood]

No actual malice because malice is personal. This was just a general policy to make border control and the Trump administration look bad. Nothing personal. Doctor just caught in crossfire.

[who knows what evil?]

...then sue them 24-7...

[LuxAerterna]

I don't think that doctor qualifies as a public figure.

Agreed. Nobody outside of his own practice, circle of colleagues, etc., would know who he is without the slander of Rachel Maddow. Shouldn't this be enough to make it past the public figure hurdle of the New York Times vs Sullivan?

[9YearLurker]

Might they not have lied unknowingly or with some motivation other than malice?

[Jamestown1630]

I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer. But it seems to me that people in their positions are expected to get their facts straight. Otherwise they’re in position and in danger of hurting people all over the place.

At least, as the OP suggested, it goes to negligence.

[9YearLurker]

Fair enough.

[odawg]

Tey were libeling the doctor in order to libel Trump.

[Jamestown1630]

And perhaps in the process of finding negligence, they will also find malice.