The outlet published salacious internet hearsay with no investigation, subsequent investigation could validate none of it, but Court finds no "Actual Malice" despite apparent "bias."
They don't know what a document is and I bet they don't have a job because jobs are a pyramid scheme. They are so self absorbed, they don't think for a second how this must look. Thank you for the laugh factory read!
You see these clowns online, they act as though they were vindicated. But then, I think they assume they can say what they want and a long as they use the proper slogans and position themselves as underdog warriors for real justice, there's a certain audience who feels outright obligated to accept their BS at face value.
I didn't know that, but it makes the criticism about me going on Fox even more absurd. I don't go around giving lectures with Tucker Carlson. Even more fascinating is that they can still market themselves as a Satanist group even after admitting to not identifying with Satanism and pairing themselves with Satanic Panic-propagators.
It is absurd. Appeals have a fairly low success rate, but I have higher hopes for this one. Newsweek was obviously pretty worried about the outcome. Nancy Cooper was stress puking by noon during her deposition.
I can only hope it goes better in the appeal. As you describe it, the behavior of Newsweek would certainly seem to rise to actual malice. The absence of fact checking, the lack of a serious investigation, and their failure to offer you an opportunity to respond to specific claims, certainly sounds like "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Newsweek's argument is that it was not they making the claims, but that they accurately reported what others said. However, they have editorial guidelines that claim they work to validate such claims. So their reporting it as they did, from our viewpoint, is the same as them saying it.
Yeah, I'm not sure what they mean by that in this case, or what that could mean in general. The fact is, they had nobody who claimed actual knowledge related to the claims made.
As an attorney - malice can be shown by knowledge of falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. It can be shown either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Lack of investigation of the claims, particularly claims of sexual abuse of minors, would seem to be sufficient to get past MSJ under the reckless disregard for the truth.
One minor point of contention - it is not wrong for an attorney in deposition to clarify the meaning of a term such as "documents". The term "document" in the evidence code is extremely broad, and can include texts, photographs, video, voicemails etc... (basically any type of recordings). I would have simply broken it down by first asking if she reviewed any thing that is written (news articles, emails, texts, social media posts), then asking about tv programs, video, podcasts. And finally asking if she reviewed anything else in preparation for the deposition (and whether she talked to anyone other than her attorney about the case). But, perhaps your attorney just felt like making her look stupid because she is an awful person.
They don't know what a document is and I bet they don't have a job because jobs are a pyramid scheme. They are so self absorbed, they don't think for a second how this must look. Thank you for the laugh factory read!
You see these clowns online, they act as though they were vindicated. But then, I think they assume they can say what they want and a long as they use the proper slogans and position themselves as underdog warriors for real justice, there's a certain audience who feels outright obligated to accept their BS at face value.
Never forget Johnson and Duin teamed up to speak on free speech at a religious news event shortly after the lawsuit ended.
The section was titled “How to Avoid a Lawsuit”. Apparently the answer is annoy the lawyer at deposition time.
I didn't know that, but it makes the criticism about me going on Fox even more absurd. I don't go around giving lectures with Tucker Carlson. Even more fascinating is that they can still market themselves as a Satanist group even after admitting to not identifying with Satanism and pairing themselves with Satanic Panic-propagators.
If you tour-lectured with Fucker Carlson, you would be tarred and feathered by them the very second they found out.
It’s double standards and it’s absolute bullshit.
Receipts - https://rna.org/2025-conference
If this wasn't actual malice then nothing is.
It is absurd. Appeals have a fairly low success rate, but I have higher hopes for this one. Newsweek was obviously pretty worried about the outcome. Nancy Cooper was stress puking by noon during her deposition.
I can only hope it goes better in the appeal. As you describe it, the behavior of Newsweek would certainly seem to rise to actual malice. The absence of fact checking, the lack of a serious investigation, and their failure to offer you an opportunity to respond to specific claims, certainly sounds like "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Newsweek's argument is that it was not they making the claims, but that they accurately reported what others said. However, they have editorial guidelines that claim they work to validate such claims. So their reporting it as they did, from our viewpoint, is the same as them saying it.
"semi-anonymous"?
Yeah, I'm not sure what they mean by that in this case, or what that could mean in general. The fact is, they had nobody who claimed actual knowledge related to the claims made.
As an attorney - malice can be shown by knowledge of falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. It can be shown either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Lack of investigation of the claims, particularly claims of sexual abuse of minors, would seem to be sufficient to get past MSJ under the reckless disregard for the truth.
One minor point of contention - it is not wrong for an attorney in deposition to clarify the meaning of a term such as "documents". The term "document" in the evidence code is extremely broad, and can include texts, photographs, video, voicemails etc... (basically any type of recordings). I would have simply broken it down by first asking if she reviewed any thing that is written (news articles, emails, texts, social media posts), then asking about tv programs, video, podcasts. And finally asking if she reviewed anything else in preparation for the deposition (and whether she talked to anyone other than her attorney about the case). But, perhaps your attorney just felt like making her look stupid because she is an awful person.
She is, in actuality, stupid, or at least pretended to a ridiculous level of absolute cluelessness. Point taken, however.
Malicious incompetence needs to be a legal understanding.