I don’t know and I’m not an attorney, but the linkages are so damn clear. Is there any doubt that the ad is saying that what happened on March 13 was evidence (i.e. assumed into fact) of the climate of fear and racism? What happened on March 13? Who doesn’t know what happened. The first paragraph seems pretty clear to me who they are talking about as “proof” of a racist “problem” at Duke.
To paraphrase another poster, this ad didn’t pop out of a vacuum and uses an incident to justify its publication. The incident has been pre-judged.
Like I said earlier, let the 88 twist in the wind.
As a matter of law, there are no linkages. Libel and defamation torts rely solely upon the words spoken and/or written - not "implications.". Parole evidence is admissible to demonstrate the meaning of any ambiguous terms within the four corners of the documents, but it cannot be used to prove the substantive elements of the cause of action.
As there any doubt that the ad is saying that what happened on March 13 was evidence (i.e. assumed into fact) of the climate of fear and racism? What happened on March 13? Who doesn’t know what happened. The first paragraph seems pretty clear to me who they are talking about as “proof” of a racist “problem” at Duke.
Those are all statements of opinion - opinions which are, per se, protected by the First Amendment.
More importantly, however, defamation torts require the element of malice - that is, that the speaker's act with reckless disregard for the truth of the matter asserted. This cannot be demonstrated - instead, the Duke 88 acted in reasonable reliance upon the facts as they were reported in the news media at the time - and the news media reported the facts as relayed to them by Mike Nifong.