"****** Media Men" List Creator Unable to Escape Libel Suit [ed]

The Hollywood Reporter ^ | June 30, 2020 | Moira Donegan

[C19fan]

The judge concludes that Stephen Elliott, an author who was accused of rape, is not a public figure who needs to show actual malice to prevail. In a decision with potentially large ramifications, New York federal judge LaShann DeArcy Hall won't dismiss a libel suit against "Shitty Media Men" creator Moira Donegan.

[C19fan]

Mr. Elliott being declared a private person means it will be much more likely Donegan will have to pay. Elliott needs to only prove under the > 50% rule for Civil cases:

knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.

Mr. Elliott does not have to prove Donegan knew the statement was false as would a public figure.

[backwoods-engineer]

This is a COLD, CHILLING WIND against free speech.

War is coming, people. In fact, I think it's already proceeding apace.

[Macoozie]

“LaShann Moutique DeArcy Hall”

I want a rockin cool name like that!

Sounds like a lawfirm all on it’s own.

I normally don’t trust dash women.
But no dash??

[kiryandil]

On October 10, 2018, Stephen Elliott, a writer based in New Orleans, and founder of the literary site the Rumpus, filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against "Moira Donegan and Jane Does (1-30)" seeking $1.5 million in damages.

Donegan is represented by Robbie Kaplan, a co-founder of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund and Elliott is represented by Andrew Miltenberg, a sexual assault defense attorney. Elliott's lawsuit seeks to make public the identities of those who contributed to the crowd-sourced Google spreadsheet.

Google [Goolag] reportedly told The Daily Beast that it would "oppose any attempt by Mr. Elliott to obtain information about this document from us."

[an amused spectator]

This is a COLD, CHILLING WIND against free speech.

How's that??

War is coming, people. In fact, I think it's already proceeding apace.

That it is.

The results of the November election won't be accepted by either side.

[TBP]

I would do it anyway, just to hurt her.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is a COLD, CHILLING WIND against free speech.

A question: Are you aware that the First Amendment is - you know, like, an amendment to the original Constitution?

Of course you are. It wasn’t in the unamended Constitution because the Federalists didn’t put it there. The reason they didn’t put it there was because recognized rights of Americans were a matter of common law. The Federalists knew that the rights of Americans were therefore nowhere comprehensively compiled - and that it was a fool’s errand to try to compile such a comprehensive list.

The Federalists had much bigger fish to fry - replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution’s stronger national government first and last - and consequently had no interest at all in modifying any common law right. They just didn’t need the controversy that would inevitably entail.

So much for their pre-ratification intentions. But ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing, and the Antifederalists were able to exact a promise of a bill of rights by amendment to the new constitution from the Federalists during the debates over ratification.

The Bill of Rights represents the Federalists’ solution to that problem. It consists of the first eight amendments, which “enumerate” (as the Ninth Amendment puts it) only those rights which had historically been abused by tyrants. Not all rights, it would have been a fool’s errand to attempt it. It is the Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

which expresses the Federalists’ true perspective on all rights.

The First Amendment refers to “the” freedom of the press, and the Second Amendment refers to “the” RKBA. But although 2A implies things like the ability to own ammunition which are not expressly articulated, no one has ever proposed that RKBA entails the right to commit armed assault, let along murder. Similarly there are things you can physically do with a printing press that you are not legally allowed to do. Ever wonder why pornography restrictions survived passage of 1A? Simple - “the” freedom of the press - what in 1788 everyone understood to be a right - did not prevent regulation of pornography then, and thus it doesn’t prevent it now.

Now as to the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision: it rests firmly on the claim that

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

And the problem with that is that your right to not have your reputation unjustifiably “assaulted with a (reputation ally) deadly weapon” - the law of libel - was not touched at all by the First Amendment. And until the Warren Court unanimously went off the rails in 1964, no court had ever held that it did.

And now you know why Scalia did, and Thomas does, favor overruling Sullivan.