FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019

Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by zaroth on Monday November 18, 2019 @12:42PM (#21566310)

The difference between the NYT having an opinion and me having an opinion is that only the NYT is protected against lawsuits for libel with a special standard of “actual malice” by the contorted reasoning that anyone they chose to publish an article on must therefore be a public figure.

IANAL, but a good example of this is the coverage of the Covington High School students.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by matt4077 on Monday November 18, 2019 @01:02PM (#21566498)

The actual malice standard was first defined in a case involving media (the NYT, as it happens), but it applies to anyone, including you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17... by wostusername on Monday November 18, 2019 @02:21PM (#21567282)

I think what the other poster was trying to say is that in the US defamation law treats public figures and non-public figures (and confusingly "limited purpose public figures") differently. The standard of "actual malice" applies to public figures only, the standard is lower for non-public figures. Which invites the question of "Is anyone the NYT writes about automatically a public figure?" Or even a limited purpose public figure?

IANAL so I don't know the answer, but I hope the answer is no. Since if the answer is yes it would allow a large media organization to thrust anyone into the spotlight and defame them without recourse as long as "actual malice" can't be established (ie the Covington High kids).

[ Parent | on HN ]