Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. The video went
Speaker 1: viral last month, a sixteen year old student wearing a
Speaker 1: Maga hat while facing down a Native American elder at
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Memorial. Now that student, Nick Salmon, is suing
Speaker 1: the Washington Post for the way it covered the encounter.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Eugene professor at u c l A
Speaker 1: law school and founder of the popular blog The Voli Conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the complaint here, which has some conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories among other allegations. Tell us a little bit about it. Well, Um, so,
Speaker 1: the plain to pursuing claiming that the Washington Post misreported
Speaker 1: what was going on in a way that damaged his reputation,
Speaker 1: and he points to home a bunch of different things
Speaker 1: that he says the Post incorrectly said. So. For example,
Speaker 1: he says that the Post talked about how he and
Speaker 1: his fellow students were supposedly swarming Nathan Phillips, the American
Speaker 1: Indian activists as supposedly blocking his exit and the like.
Speaker 1: The difficulty is that a considerable number of things that
Speaker 1: are religion in the complaint are likely going to be
Speaker 1: seen as matters of opinion. So, for example, swarm, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a that's an evaluate of judgment. Whether somebody is
Speaker 1: swarming someone or coming up to someone or just being
Speaker 1: around someone in a large group, that's something that is
Speaker 1: generally going to be seen as a matter of opinion. Likewise,
Speaker 1: there is a claim that the Washington Post article suggested
Speaker 1: that Sedman's behavior quote violated the fundamental standards of his
Speaker 1: religious community and violated the policies of his school, such
Speaker 1: that he should be expelled close quote, Even to the
Speaker 1: extent that article might have conveyed that message is also
Speaker 1: pretty clearly a matter of opinion. What violates fundamental standards
Speaker 1: of religious community, and certainly for what somebody should be expelled,
Speaker 1: those are judgments of opinion. Also, some of the other
Speaker 1: things seemed to be not about him as such, they
Speaker 1: seem to be claims. That is to say, the things
Speaker 1: that they is saying are faults that were reported by
Speaker 1: the Post seemed to be claims about what other people
Speaker 1: were saying. So for example, there was a claim that
Speaker 1: some people chanted build the wall, but I don't think
Speaker 1: that they ever said that he chanted that. And underliable
Speaker 1: lay you need to show that there are false statements
Speaker 1: made of and concerning you. Is there any indication in
Speaker 1: the lawsuit because this was on all the cable networks
Speaker 1: and it was in every publication you can think of.
Speaker 1: Why are they singling out the Post? Well, they certainly
Speaker 1: have said that they would be suing others as well.
Speaker 1: They're entitled to sue the Post as well as others,
Speaker 1: or they if they wanted, for whatever reason, choose to
Speaker 1: see only the Post, they could. I do think think
Speaker 1: though that there might be difficulty showing that the Post
Speaker 1: article is what caused him any specific item of damages
Speaker 1: that he can point to. But in principle, they could
Speaker 1: sue anybody who has written about them, and it sounds
Speaker 1: like they would be. Uh. There are a few allegations
Speaker 1: that do point to possible factual assertions. So, for example,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post did say that Phillips said that Sandman
Speaker 1: quote just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to
Speaker 1: retreat close quote. That sounds like that might be an
Speaker 1: allegation of some factual misconduct, not just in a valuat
Speaker 1: of judgment, but I claim that, look, this person was
Speaker 1: essentially making it impossible for me to escape. Are they
Speaker 1: trying to hold the Post to a difficult reporting standard here?
Speaker 1: So the plaintiffs would be viewed as a private figure,
Speaker 1: unlike a public official on like somebody really famous. But
Speaker 1: the statements are on a matter of public concern, and
Speaker 1: the legal rule there is kind of interestingly sp it.
Speaker 1: If a private figure is suing on a matter of
Speaker 1: public concern, then if he can show proven compensitory damages.
Speaker 1: He lost some scholarship, he lost a job, maybe even
Speaker 1: some people, some friends stopped talking to him, then in
Speaker 1: that case he needs merely to show that the Washington
Speaker 1: Post was negligent in its coverage. But if he wants
Speaker 1: to get punitive damages, which he does, or so called
Speaker 1: presumed damages, which are compensitory damages but without any specific
Speaker 1: proof of any specific injury to reputation, but just based
Speaker 1: on common sense that certain statements might lead to reputational injury,
Speaker 1: then he has to show that the Washington Post actually
Speaker 1: knew the statements were false, or at least were likely false.
Speaker 1: That would be an especially hard standard for him to meet. Well,
Speaker 1: would he also qualify as a limited purpose public figure? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Limited purpose public figures are generally
Speaker 1: people who deliberately get themselves involved in some high profile debates.
Speaker 1: So if he deliberately went on to levision to speak
Speaker 1: out about his views about whatever I'm not sure actually
Speaker 1: what his views are on various subjects, then he would
Speaker 1: be limited purpose public figure. Merely showing up at in
Speaker 1: this case, a pro life rally is not enough to
Speaker 1: make someone a limited purpose public figure. So is this
Speaker 1: an uphill legal battle? Yes, I think very much so.
Speaker 1: I think many of the statements are going to be
Speaker 1: found not to be factual assertions about sandmen, And as
Speaker 1: to the few seemingly factual assertions, I think the Post
Speaker 1: will have a good argument that either was reasonable in
Speaker 1: its investigation or the very least didn't know the statements
Speaker 1: were false and would most have to pay these proven
Speaker 1: compensitory damages. And I'm not sure that sediment can prove
Speaker 1: any specific compensitory damages the ways an adult who aspired
Speaker 1: from a job because of an allegation might be able
Speaker 1: to prove. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Eugene Bolck, professor
Speaker 1: at u c l A Law School, and you can
Speaker 1: check out his blog, The Bolock Conspiracy. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg