Cenk Uygur Has a Good Legal Case for Suing the New York Times Over David Duke ‘Lie’ (Update)

[Harshaw]

Definitely think there is a compelling case to be made between the writer's consultation with Cenk prior to publishing the article, along with his provision of the actual interview video in full. To go through that video, including his very obvious sarcastic dismissal of David Duke at the end, then turn around and omit the tonality, is between NYT's editors and the writer as a trained journalist, at the very least strongly implicit of malice. It's a moot point though; this isn't worth pursuing.

Almost no one ever proves actual malice. This won't do it.

 

[Surrealistik]

Almost no one ever proves actual malice. This won't do it.

Specifically proving malice beyond reasonable doubt is likely unnecessary anyways per the California law by which remedies would be pursued in this case:

The legal standards for a false light claim are provided via current California Civil Jury Instructions. Under California law, there are five elements of a false light claim: (1) falsehood; (2) offensiveness; (3) identification of the plaintiff; (4) public disclosure; and (5) fault.

It is exceedingly easy to demonstrate all 5 of these things as the linked law analysis article attests.

 

[Harshaw]

Specifically proving malice beyond reasonable doubt is likely unnecessary anyways per the California law by which remedies would be pursued in this case:



It is exceedingly easy to demonstrate all 5 of these things as the linked law analysis article attests.

False light claims are often easily swatted away by stating it's your opinion, especially if the facts are not in dispute, as I imagine they would not be in this case.

 

[Surrealistik]

False light claims are often easily swatted away by stating it's your opinion, especially if the facts are not in dispute, as I imagine they would not be in this case.

No reasonable judge is going to let this slide on the basis of it merely being the author's opinion when all five of these things are so easily and concretely demonstrated, particularly given the context, and the author's communications with Cenk prior to publishing, as well as her receipt of the video in full.

 

[Harshaw]

No reasonable judge is going to let this slide on the basis of it merely being the author's opinion when all five of these things are so easily and concretely demonstrated, particularly given the context, and the author's communications with Cenk prior to publishing, as well as her receipt of the video in full.

You are not in a position to make that statement with confidence. Besides, it won't be up to a judge unless the parties agree to a bench trial, and why would they?

 

[Surrealistik]

You are not in a position to make that statement with confidence. Besides, it won't be up to a judge unless the parties agree to a bench trial, and why would they?

Judge, jury, pistols at dawn, I don't see how in any case an argument to opinion would get this author out of what is essentially an open and shut fulfillment of all 5 requirements for a guilty verdict, especially given that a thinking human being, nevermind a trained journalist, couldn't look at that video and come away thinking Cenk's tonality at the end of the interview wasn't sarcastic. You're welcome to disagree, but if you legitimately believe there's a defense here on that basis, I doubt whether we're going to persuade each other.

 

[Harshaw]

Judge, jury, pistols at dawn, I don't see how in any case an argument to opinion would get this author out of what is essentially an open and shut fulfillment of all 5 requirements for a guilty verdict, and given that a thinking human being, nevermind a trained journalist, couldn't look at that video and come away thinking Cenk's tonality at the end of the interview wasn't sarcastic. You're welcome to disagree, but if you legitimately believe there's a defense here on that basis, I doubt whether we're going to persuade each other.

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what can be proven, and it's not hard to make the defense of opinion when it's purely a matter of interpretation.

Defamation cases (of any stripe) are notoriously hard to prove.

 

[Surrealistik]

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what can be proven, and it's not hard to make the defense of opinion when it's purely a matter of interpretation.

Defamation cases (of any stripe) are notoriously hard to prove.

The problem is that defense of opinion is a hard sell here because of her consultation with Cenk, where she apparently acknowledged the acrimonious nature of the interview, and the video itself which features a blatantly hostile exchange, including on the specific matter of Duke's racism. Moreover, she acknowledged in the very same article that the interview was combative.

If I were putting money on a verdict, it would be that Cenk wins, hands down.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Definitely think there is a compelling case to be made between the writer's consultation with Cenk prior to publishing the article, along with his provision of the actual interview video in full. To go through that video, including his very obvious sarcastic dismissal of David Duke at the end, then turn around and omit the tonality, is between NYT's editors and the writer as a trained journalist, at the very least strongly implicit of malice. It's a moot point though; this isn't worth pursuing.

I'm really not interested in debating opinions on the man, and who, between Trump and Cenk is creepier; suffice to say I disagree with you completely.

In race to the bottom of the creep barrel, Uygur wins, but Trump tries harder as #2. :thumbs:

Also, Uygur has no case. :shrug:

 

[3leftsdoo]

Specifically proving malice beyond reasonable doubt is likely unnecessary anyways per the California law by which remedies would be pursued in this case:

It is exceedingly easy to demonstrate all 5 of these things as the linked law analysis article attests.

Malice - or an extraordinary lack of care - are HUGELY important in such cases.

Uygur = No case

 

[3leftsdoo]

No reasonable judge is going to let this slide on the basis of it merely being the author's opinion when all five of these things are so easily and concretely demonstrated, particularly given the context, and the author's communications with Cenk prior to publishing, as well as her receipt of the video in full.

I'm always happy to make a signature change agreement with folks who think they're right about such things; let me know if you want to put your siggie (and mine) on the line in defense of your beliefs about this.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The problem is that defense of opinion is a hard sell here because of her consultation with Cenk, where she apparently acknowledged the acrimonious nature of the interview, and the video itself which features a blatantly hostile exchange, including on the specific matter of Duke's racism. Moreover, she acknowledged in the very same article that the interview was combative.

If I were putting money on a verdict, it would be that Cenk wins, hands down.

Put your siggie on the verdict then; Uygur has 0 chance of prevailing.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Btw, Surrealistik:

I think you're one of the finest posters on these forums, and I have a great deal of respect for you.

But you're letting your head run away with your heart on this one.

 

[Surrealistik]

Malice - or an extraordinary lack of care - are HUGELY important in such cases.

Uygur = No case

As stated earlier in the thread, under California false light laws, demonstrating malice isn't even required.

Btw, Surrealistik:

I think you're one of the finest posters on these forums, and I have a great deal of respect for you.

But you're letting your head run away with your heart on this one.

While I appreciate the compliment, I find this to be a very clear cut case, and it has little to do with my emotions, and everything to do with the facts as they stand and the nature of California's false light laws.

Again, this is completely moot as Cenk isn't going to go after the author because it is not politically advantageous.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You are not in a position to make that statement with confidence. Besides, it won't be up to a judge unless the parties agree to a bench trial, and why would they?

First off, it will be up to a judge whether a jury ever hears the case. Further, if it were to get to a jury, the judge will educate them on the requirements of the law. Your claiming that "malice" must be a component under California law notwithstanding, the salient points will be presented to the judge and the jury.

In all likelihood, if he pursues this, the NYT will enter into a settlement. There will be no trial.

 

[3leftsdoo]

As stated earlier in the thread, under California false light laws, demonstrating malice isn't even required.

While I appreciate the compliment, I find this to be a very clear cut case, and it has little to do with my emotions, and everything to do with the facts as they stand and the nature of California's false light laws.

Again, this is completely moot as Cenk isn't going to go after the author because it is not politically advantageous.

It's clear cut that Uygur wouldn't have a ghost of a prayer of a chance.

But we can agree to disagree.

 

[3leftsdoo]

First off, it will be up to a judge whether a jury ever hears the case. Further, if it were to get to a jury, the judge will educate them on the requirements of the law. Your claiming that "malice" must be a component under California law notwithstanding, the salient points will be presented to the judge and the jury.

In all likelihood, if he pursues this, the NYT will enter into a settlement. There will be no trial.

He won't pursue. If he did, it would go to court. Where he would lose. (No settlement.)