Posted on 03/20/2021 10:43:25 AM PDT by blam
Supreme Court Judge Rules New York Times Used ‘Deceptive Disinformation’ To Smear Project Veritas
A New York Supreme Court Judge last week excoriated the New York Times used “reckless disregard” and “acted with actual malice” when two of their reporters deceptively presented opinions as fact in several articles denigrating whistleblower organization Project Veritas.
What the Times did, as you’ll see below, is similar to countless hit-pieces against Zero Hedge and others; using broad, unsupported brush strokes to slander their ideological opponents. We can only hope this sets new precedent for future defamation cases.
* * *
As The Epoch Times’ Zachary Stieber reports in detail (emphasis ours), writers for the New York Times may have spread deceptive claims about the nonprofit journalism group Project Veritas, a judge ruled this week.
In stories from 2020 about Project Veritas videos, writers Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu inserted sentences that were opinions despite the articles being billed as news, New York Supreme Court Justice Charles Wood said.
“If a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion,” Wood wrote in a 16-page decision denying the paper’s request to dismiss a lawsuit from Project Veritas.
“The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video ‘deceptive,’ but the dictionary definitions of ‘disinformation’ and ‘deceptive’ provided by defendants’ counsel certainly apply to Astor’s and Hsu’s failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim,” he added.
At issue are five articles that Project Veritas alleges contained false and defamatory information.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationandstate.com ...
Oddly, in New York, a “Supreme” court is not the highest level of court. That’s actually what they call their general trial courts.
The pursuit of justice has a quality of its own.
O’Keeke wins another one.
To me, the headline read as if the writer wanted to deceive and have the casual reader believe that the US Supreme justice had ruled. That's why I added 'state' to the title.
Hey Project Veritas. Sue the NY Slimes for $1 billion and put me on the jury.
Meanwhile, Judge Silbermann, in a blistering dissent, called for the US Supreme Court to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C5F7840A6FFFCF648525869D004ECAC5/$file/19-7132-1890626.pdf
/s
That is funny bad sad and true.
Bad too.
I guess this is not as major an issue as say... elections.
When it comes to elections, judges will let the "progressives" count the votes till the next decade until a desirable outcome is achieved.
The NYT’s defense should be that their smears were harmless because nobody believes the Times!
New York’s highest court, oddly, is the Court of Appeals. Many years ago, the Legislature got upset with a decision the Supreme Court made, so they “demoted” it and put the Court of Appeals above it.
Any time a reporter uses an adjective or an adverb
they are adding their opinion to a story. Truthfully doubt modern journalists even know what those 2 words are.
Project Veritas has some good First Amendment attorneys and they never lose.
No matter what happens in this case, Project Veritas has placed the fear in the NY Times and these people who will be on tape answering questions.
It’s a real nightmare for them now and there’s really no way around what they wrote. If Project Veritas should see this out and win, it would be momentous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.