WEBVTT - Covington Student’s Suit Against Washington Post

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. The video went

0:00:20.160 --> 0:00:23.240
<v Speaker 1>viral last month, a sixteen year old student wearing a

0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Maga hat while facing down a Native American elder at

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:29.920
<v Speaker 1>the Lincoln Memorial. Now that student, Nick Salmon, is suing

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:32.559
<v Speaker 1>the Washington Post for the way it covered the encounter.

0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Eugene professor at u c l A

0:00:35.800 --> 0:00:39.600
<v Speaker 1>law school and founder of the popular blog The Voli Conspiracy.

0:00:40.080 --> 0:00:43.360
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about the complaint here, which has some conspiracy

0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:48.600
<v Speaker 1>theories among other allegations. Tell us a little bit about it. Well, Um, so,

0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:54.200
<v Speaker 1>the plain to pursuing claiming that the Washington Post misreported

0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:56.960
<v Speaker 1>what was going on in a way that damaged his reputation,

0:00:57.720 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>and he points to home a bunch of different things

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>that he says the Post incorrectly said. So. For example,

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>he says that the Post talked about how he and

0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 1>his fellow students were supposedly swarming Nathan Phillips, the American

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Indian activists as supposedly blocking his exit and the like.

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 1>The difficulty is that a considerable number of things that

0:01:21.120 --> 0:01:23.679
<v Speaker 1>are religion in the complaint are likely going to be

0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:28.480
<v Speaker 1>seen as matters of opinion. So, for example, swarm, you know,

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:32.760
<v Speaker 1>that's a that's an evaluate of judgment. Whether somebody is

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:35.600
<v Speaker 1>swarming someone or coming up to someone or just being

0:01:35.640 --> 0:01:39.600
<v Speaker 1>around someone in a large group, that's something that is

0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:42.880
<v Speaker 1>generally going to be seen as a matter of opinion. Likewise,

0:01:42.920 --> 0:01:47.040
<v Speaker 1>there is a claim that the Washington Post article suggested

0:01:47.080 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 1>that Sedman's behavior quote violated the fundamental standards of his

0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:54.760
<v Speaker 1>religious community and violated the policies of his school, such

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>that he should be expelled close quote, Even to the

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>extent that article might have conveyed that message is also

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:04.080
<v Speaker 1>pretty clearly a matter of opinion. What violates fundamental standards

0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 1>of religious community, and certainly for what somebody should be expelled,

0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:10.560
<v Speaker 1>those are judgments of opinion. Also, some of the other

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.760
<v Speaker 1>things seemed to be not about him as such, they

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:17.440
<v Speaker 1>seem to be claims. That is to say, the things

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 1>that they is saying are faults that were reported by

0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 1>the Post seemed to be claims about what other people

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:27.800
<v Speaker 1>were saying. So for example, there was a claim that

0:02:27.880 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>some people chanted build the wall, but I don't think

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:34.040
<v Speaker 1>that they ever said that he chanted that. And underliable

0:02:34.120 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>lay you need to show that there are false statements

0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:39.560
<v Speaker 1>made of and concerning you. Is there any indication in

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:44.040
<v Speaker 1>the lawsuit because this was on all the cable networks

0:02:44.080 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 1>and it was in every publication you can think of.

0:02:46.680 --> 0:02:50.560
<v Speaker 1>Why are they singling out the Post? Well, they certainly

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:52.799
<v Speaker 1>have said that they would be suing others as well.

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>They're entitled to sue the Post as well as others,

0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:57.840
<v Speaker 1>or they if they wanted, for whatever reason, choose to

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 1>see only the Post, they could. I do think think

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:03.640
<v Speaker 1>though that there might be difficulty showing that the Post

0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:06.800
<v Speaker 1>article is what caused him any specific item of damages

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:09.280
<v Speaker 1>that he can point to. But in principle, they could

0:03:09.400 --> 0:03:11.800
<v Speaker 1>sue anybody who has written about them, and it sounds

0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>like they would be. Uh. There are a few allegations

0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:19.840
<v Speaker 1>that do point to possible factual assertions. So, for example,

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 1>the Washington Post did say that Phillips said that Sandman

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>quote just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to

0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 1>retreat close quote. That sounds like that might be an

0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:35.280
<v Speaker 1>allegation of some factual misconduct, not just in a valuat

0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 1>of judgment, but I claim that, look, this person was

0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:40.560
<v Speaker 1>essentially making it impossible for me to escape. Are they

0:03:40.600 --> 0:03:45.120
<v Speaker 1>trying to hold the Post to a difficult reporting standard here?

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>So the plaintiffs would be viewed as a private figure,

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 1>unlike a public official on like somebody really famous. But

0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 1>the statements are on a matter of public concern, and

0:03:56.760 --> 0:04:00.120
<v Speaker 1>the legal rule there is kind of interestingly sp it.

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:03.240
<v Speaker 1>If a private figure is suing on a matter of

0:04:03.360 --> 0:04:08.080
<v Speaker 1>public concern, then if he can show proven compensitory damages.

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:11.600
<v Speaker 1>He lost some scholarship, he lost a job, maybe even

0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:15.840
<v Speaker 1>some people, some friends stopped talking to him, then in

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:18.880
<v Speaker 1>that case he needs merely to show that the Washington

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:22.120
<v Speaker 1>Post was negligent in its coverage. But if he wants

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.800
<v Speaker 1>to get punitive damages, which he does, or so called

0:04:24.839 --> 0:04:28.599
<v Speaker 1>presumed damages, which are compensitory damages but without any specific

0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:31.920
<v Speaker 1>proof of any specific injury to reputation, but just based

0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>on common sense that certain statements might lead to reputational injury,

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:39.280
<v Speaker 1>then he has to show that the Washington Post actually

0:04:39.360 --> 0:04:42.440
<v Speaker 1>knew the statements were false, or at least were likely false.

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.919
<v Speaker 1>That would be an especially hard standard for him to meet. Well,

0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:50.720
<v Speaker 1>would he also qualify as a limited purpose public figure? No,

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. Limited purpose public figures are generally

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>people who deliberately get themselves involved in some high profile debates.

0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:00.839
<v Speaker 1>So if he deliberately went on to levision to speak

0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:03.880
<v Speaker 1>out about his views about whatever I'm not sure actually

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:06.680
<v Speaker 1>what his views are on various subjects, then he would

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 1>be limited purpose public figure. Merely showing up at in

0:05:10.800 --> 0:05:13.440
<v Speaker 1>this case, a pro life rally is not enough to

0:05:13.480 --> 0:05:16.920
<v Speaker 1>make someone a limited purpose public figure. So is this

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:19.960
<v Speaker 1>an uphill legal battle? Yes, I think very much so.

0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:22.280
<v Speaker 1>I think many of the statements are going to be

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:27.000
<v Speaker 1>found not to be factual assertions about sandmen, And as

0:05:27.080 --> 0:05:30.039
<v Speaker 1>to the few seemingly factual assertions, I think the Post

0:05:30.080 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 1>will have a good argument that either was reasonable in

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:36.080
<v Speaker 1>its investigation or the very least didn't know the statements

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:39.159
<v Speaker 1>were false and would most have to pay these proven

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:42.039
<v Speaker 1>compensitory damages. And I'm not sure that sediment can prove

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:46.000
<v Speaker 1>any specific compensitory damages the ways an adult who aspired

0:05:46.080 --> 0:05:48.440
<v Speaker 1>from a job because of an allegation might be able

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:51.679
<v Speaker 1>to prove. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Eugene Bolck, professor

0:05:51.720 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 1>at u c l A Law School, and you can

0:05:53.800 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 1>check out his blog, The Bolock Conspiracy. Thanks for listening

0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:03.559
<v Speaker 1>to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 1>to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg

0:06:07.240 --> 0:06:12.000
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg