No defamation claim against the New York Times

The Court of Appeals holds that a controversial writer cannot sue the New York Times for defamation arising from a series of articles in which the Times said he was "animated by race hatred," an "open white nationalist," and "anti-Semitic."

The case is Brimelow v. New York Times, a summary order issued on October 22. The Times published five articles in 2019 and 2020. The case is dismissed under Rule 12, so plaintiff has to satisfied the heightened Iqbal plausibility standard that the Supreme Court adopted in 2009 in determining whether the plaintiff states a viable claim. He does not, the Court of Appeals (Walker, Bianco and Menashi) says, because of another heightened legal standard: since plaintiff is a public figure, he has to plausibly allege that the Times acted with malice in describing him this way.

The Second Circuit has held that a public figure, in bringing a defamation claim, he "must plead plausible grounds to infer actual malice by alleging enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of actual malice." You cannot guess your way into a lawsuit. The Court wants facts that plausibly give rise to the elements of the claim. This may be a tall order if you are trying to prove the defendant had a malicious state of mind. 

Actual  malice  requires  that  the  Complaint  plausibly allege that the Times published the defamatory statements that form the basis of Brimelow’s claims with knowledge that [they were] false or with reckless disregard of whether [they were] false or not.” Plaintiff does not allege this. He claims the Times acted with malice because he had repeatedly denied being a white nationalist, which means the Times ran the articles knowing that its statements about him were false. But it is "well-settled that denials without more do not support a plausible claim of actual malice," the Court says, citing Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977). At best, plaintiff alleges, the Times acted with journalistic negligence in writing the articles. Since negligence is not the same as "actual malice," the complaint fails to assert a claim, and the case is dismissed.

Labels: