Donald Trump sues the Wall Street Journal, sort of; he also learns you do not have a copyright interest in your answers to interview questions; attorneys appear anonymously in immigration court.
Surprised you guys didn't touch on the bit in the defamation filing where they go "The WSJ said it was an exclusive, but then they disseminated it everywhere!"
So the day after, the Macrons are suing Candace Owens for claiming Mrs. Macron is actually a man. Does this qualify as defamation? It passes the bar of Fact vs Opinion, but then there's the "I'm not selling facts, but Factual Entertainment" defence so much of MAGA-world crawls under.
Ever since this story started when I heard it was the Wall Street Journal I thought this could be a case to undo Sullivan. The more I hear this getting talked about in the news and other media it just feels like a back door into overturning Sullivan and keep hoping that I'm missing something. But the thing I see Rupert Murdoch is 94 and what better way to go out than to take Sullivan at the same time.
I'm a little confused about the explanation of actual malice at the start of the episode. If a newspaper can only be found liable if they know what they're publishing is false, wouldn't that disincentivize them from vetting and verifying what they publish? I.e. if you don't look into truth or falsity, you can always claim you didn't know something was false! (This is not a condemnation of the WSJ or a defense of DT, by the way.)
39:00 I was going to joke about he should have filed against the NYPD for coitus interruptus, but while spell checking that term, I've evidently never understood what that means. Yet another thing one heard in a movie at a young age that they inferred the meaning of from context and has continued to misunderstand for decades.
All the grand jury information, and a lot more, is in the hands of the FBI. Is there anything to stop the administration from releasing that, other than policy? Does information put under a grand jury seal become undisclose-able through other processes?
Surprised you guys didn't touch on the bit in the defamation filing where they go "The WSJ said it was an exclusive, but then they disseminated it everywhere!"
Yeah I was waiting for that too lol
So the day after, the Macrons are suing Candace Owens for claiming Mrs. Macron is actually a man. Does this qualify as defamation? It passes the bar of Fact vs Opinion, but then there's the "I'm not selling facts, but Factual Entertainment" defence so much of MAGA-world crawls under.
Ever since this story started when I heard it was the Wall Street Journal I thought this could be a case to undo Sullivan. The more I hear this getting talked about in the news and other media it just feels like a back door into overturning Sullivan and keep hoping that I'm missing something. But the thing I see Rupert Murdoch is 94 and what better way to go out than to take Sullivan at the same time.
I'm a little confused about the explanation of actual malice at the start of the episode. If a newspaper can only be found liable if they know what they're publishing is false, wouldn't that disincentivize them from vetting and verifying what they publish? I.e. if you don't look into truth or falsity, you can always claim you didn't know something was false! (This is not a condemnation of the WSJ or a defense of DT, by the way.)
Ah, to live in the universe where Trump is just some pro se crank filing 100 page rants in the courts.
"functionally pro se".
39:00 I was going to joke about he should have filed against the NYPD for coitus interruptus, but while spell checking that term, I've evidently never understood what that means. Yet another thing one heard in a movie at a young age that they inferred the meaning of from context and has continued to misunderstand for decades.
All the grand jury information, and a lot more, is in the hands of the FBI. Is there anything to stop the administration from releasing that, other than policy? Does information put under a grand jury seal become undisclose-able through other processes?