1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. The video went

6
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:23,240
Speaker 1: viral last month, a sixteen year old student wearing a

7
00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: Maga hat while facing down a Native American elder at

8
00:00:26,400 --> 00:00:29,920
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Memorial. Now that student, Nick Salmon, is suing

9
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:32,559
Speaker 1: the Washington Post for the way it covered the encounter.

10
00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:35,720
Speaker 1: Joining me is Eugene professor at u c l A

11
00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:39,600
Speaker 1: law school and founder of the popular blog The Voli Conspiracy.

12
00:00:40,080 --> 00:00:43,360
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the complaint here, which has some conspiracy

13
00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:48,600
Speaker 1: theories among other allegations. Tell us a little bit about it. Well, Um, so,

14
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:54,200
Speaker 1: the plain to pursuing claiming that the Washington Post misreported

15
00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 1: what was going on in a way that damaged his reputation,

16
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:01,520
Speaker 1: and he points to home a bunch of different things

17
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 1: that he says the Post incorrectly said. So. For example,

18
00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:10,200
Speaker 1: he says that the Post talked about how he and

19
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:14,240
Speaker 1: his fellow students were supposedly swarming Nathan Phillips, the American

20
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:17,480
Speaker 1: Indian activists as supposedly blocking his exit and the like.

21
00:01:17,880 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: The difficulty is that a considerable number of things that

22
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:23,679
Speaker 1: are religion in the complaint are likely going to be

23
00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:28,480
Speaker 1: seen as matters of opinion. So, for example, swarm, you know,

24
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:32,760
Speaker 1: that's a that's an evaluate of judgment. Whether somebody is

25
00:01:32,800 --> 00:01:35,600
Speaker 1: swarming someone or coming up to someone or just being

26
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 1: around someone in a large group, that's something that is

27
00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 1: generally going to be seen as a matter of opinion. Likewise,

28
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:47,040
Speaker 1: there is a claim that the Washington Post article suggested

29
00:01:47,080 --> 00:01:51,120
Speaker 1: that Sedman's behavior quote violated the fundamental standards of his

30
00:01:51,160 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: religious community and violated the policies of his school, such

31
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 1: that he should be expelled close quote, Even to the

32
00:01:57,800 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: extent that article might have conveyed that message is also

33
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 1: pretty clearly a matter of opinion. What violates fundamental standards

34
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,800
Speaker 1: of religious community, and certainly for what somebody should be expelled,

35
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:10,560
Speaker 1: those are judgments of opinion. Also, some of the other

36
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:14,760
Speaker 1: things seemed to be not about him as such, they

37
00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:17,440
Speaker 1: seem to be claims. That is to say, the things

38
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:19,720
Speaker 1: that they is saying are faults that were reported by

39
00:02:19,720 --> 00:02:24,720
Speaker 1: the Post seemed to be claims about what other people

40
00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:27,800
Speaker 1: were saying. So for example, there was a claim that

41
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:30,400
Speaker 1: some people chanted build the wall, but I don't think

42
00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:34,040
Speaker 1: that they ever said that he chanted that. And underliable

43
00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:36,000
Speaker 1: lay you need to show that there are false statements

44
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:39,560
Speaker 1: made of and concerning you. Is there any indication in

45
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:44,040
Speaker 1: the lawsuit because this was on all the cable networks

46
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:46,360
Speaker 1: and it was in every publication you can think of.

47
00:02:46,680 --> 00:02:50,560
Speaker 1: Why are they singling out the Post? Well, they certainly

48
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:52,799
Speaker 1: have said that they would be suing others as well.

49
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,680
Speaker 1: They're entitled to sue the Post as well as others,

50
00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:57,840
Speaker 1: or they if they wanted, for whatever reason, choose to

51
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: see only the Post, they could. I do think think

52
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:03,640
Speaker 1: though that there might be difficulty showing that the Post

53
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:06,800
Speaker 1: article is what caused him any specific item of damages

54
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 1: that he can point to. But in principle, they could

55
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:11,800
Speaker 1: sue anybody who has written about them, and it sounds

56
00:03:11,840 --> 00:03:15,800
Speaker 1: like they would be. Uh. There are a few allegations

57
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:19,840
Speaker 1: that do point to possible factual assertions. So, for example,

58
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:24,680
Speaker 1: the Washington Post did say that Phillips said that Sandman

59
00:03:24,840 --> 00:03:27,400
Speaker 1: quote just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to

60
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:31,400
Speaker 1: retreat close quote. That sounds like that might be an

61
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:35,280
Speaker 1: allegation of some factual misconduct, not just in a valuat

62
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:37,800
Speaker 1: of judgment, but I claim that, look, this person was

63
00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 1: essentially making it impossible for me to escape. Are they

64
00:03:40,600 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 1: trying to hold the Post to a difficult reporting standard here?

65
00:03:45,520 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: So the plaintiffs would be viewed as a private figure,

66
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:53,160
Speaker 1: unlike a public official on like somebody really famous. But

67
00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 1: the statements are on a matter of public concern, and

68
00:03:56,760 --> 00:04:00,120
Speaker 1: the legal rule there is kind of interestingly sp it.

69
00:04:00,520 --> 00:04:03,240
Speaker 1: If a private figure is suing on a matter of

70
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:08,080
Speaker 1: public concern, then if he can show proven compensitory damages.

71
00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 1: He lost some scholarship, he lost a job, maybe even

72
00:04:11,680 --> 00:04:15,840
Speaker 1: some people, some friends stopped talking to him, then in

73
00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:18,880
Speaker 1: that case he needs merely to show that the Washington

74
00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:22,120
Speaker 1: Post was negligent in its coverage. But if he wants

75
00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:24,800
Speaker 1: to get punitive damages, which he does, or so called

76
00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:28,599
Speaker 1: presumed damages, which are compensitory damages but without any specific

77
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:31,920
Speaker 1: proof of any specific injury to reputation, but just based

78
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:36,080
Speaker 1: on common sense that certain statements might lead to reputational injury,

79
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:39,280
Speaker 1: then he has to show that the Washington Post actually

80
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: knew the statements were false, or at least were likely false.

81
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:45,919
Speaker 1: That would be an especially hard standard for him to meet. Well,

82
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:50,720
Speaker 1: would he also qualify as a limited purpose public figure? No,

83
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:53,320
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Limited purpose public figures are generally

84
00:04:53,360 --> 00:04:57,960
Speaker 1: people who deliberately get themselves involved in some high profile debates.

85
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,839
Speaker 1: So if he deliberately went on to levision to speak

86
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:03,880
Speaker 1: out about his views about whatever I'm not sure actually

87
00:05:03,880 --> 00:05:06,680
Speaker 1: what his views are on various subjects, then he would

88
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 1: be limited purpose public figure. Merely showing up at in

89
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:13,440
Speaker 1: this case, a pro life rally is not enough to

90
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,920
Speaker 1: make someone a limited purpose public figure. So is this

91
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:19,960
Speaker 1: an uphill legal battle? Yes, I think very much so.

92
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:22,280
Speaker 1: I think many of the statements are going to be

93
00:05:22,320 --> 00:05:27,000
Speaker 1: found not to be factual assertions about sandmen, And as

94
00:05:27,080 --> 00:05:30,039
Speaker 1: to the few seemingly factual assertions, I think the Post

95
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: will have a good argument that either was reasonable in

96
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:36,080
Speaker 1: its investigation or the very least didn't know the statements

97
00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:39,159
Speaker 1: were false and would most have to pay these proven

98
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:42,039
Speaker 1: compensitory damages. And I'm not sure that sediment can prove

99
00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:46,000
Speaker 1: any specific compensitory damages the ways an adult who aspired

100
00:05:46,080 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 1: from a job because of an allegation might be able

101
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:51,679
Speaker 1: to prove. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Eugene Bolck, professor

102
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 1: at u c l A Law School, and you can

103
00:05:53,800 --> 00:06:00,320
Speaker 1: check out his blog, The Bolock Conspiracy. Thanks for listening

104
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:03,559
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

105
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:07,120
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg

106
00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:12,000
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg