- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Poli Board Defamation Scholars
Posted on 4/24/26 at 4:55 pm to dafif
Posted on 4/24/26 at 4:55 pm to dafif
quote:
Simply not true and you're better than that
Obviously evidence presented that says the story is false then moves the burden to the defense
Plaintiff has to show/prove that the defamatory material was false, but that doesn;t move the burden to the defense. Perhaps if the defense wants to defend itself by claiming the material was true then they might have the burden to do so. But that is all the Defendant's choice, nothing the Plaintiff does or says "shifts the burden."
1
Posted on 4/24/26 at 5:07 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Considering the POS author claims he has more sources than the city of Pittsburgh has people, a settlement would be quite a setback for the Atlantic.
I predict a settlement.
Posted on 4/24/26 at 9:39 pm to wookalar1013
quote:
Trumpers mocking imminent arrest discussions is…something
"Remembering recent history"? Yes, that is something indeed.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 8:14 am to Ham Malone
quote:
Tell me why Crimson77’s analysis is flawed,
I showed you the legal standard and you downvoted rather than explain why you think it is wrong
Can't stop you from being an idiot
Posted on 4/25/26 at 8:22 am to JimEverett
quote:
Plaintiff has to show/prove that the defamatory material was false, but that doesn;t move the burden to the defense. Perhaps if the defense wants to defend itself by claiming the material was true then they might have the burden to do so. But that is all the Defendant's choice, nothing the Plaintiff does or says "shifts the burden.
I think your example or hypothetical is a bit misleading
The plaintiff has the burden of proof we all agreed to that. In a car accident case if the Plaintiff says they had the greenlight that shifts the burden to the defendant. If the defendant puts no evidence onto to refute the greenlight then that fact is evidence (granted there can be cross-examination as to the untruthfulness of Plaintiff that may call into question the credibility of Plaintiff but that certainly would never allow for a judge to grant a directed verdict or summary judgment and it would go to a jury)
Similarly if the Plaintiff here testifies that the article is false and the allegations are untrue he has now presented enough testimony and evidence to get to a jury.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 8:24 am to dafif
quote:
Similarly if the Plaintiff here testifies that the article is false and the allegations are untrue he has now presented enough testimony and evidence to get to a jury.
Not exactly in a defamation case involving a public official.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. ETA: here is a link to the opinion itself. Probably a lot of good law in here for people like AlterEd to read. LINK
This post was edited on 4/25/26 at 8:26 am
Posted on 4/25/26 at 8:27 am to dafif
You pasted an AI summary having nothing to do with the standard for a Sullivan test and then misinterpreted that summary by acting like the burden somehow shifts back and forth.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 9:33 am to dafif
quote:
I think your example or hypothetical is a bit misleading
No, it is not.
Even if Kash shows evidence that the Atlantic story is false, then that changes nothing about burden of proof. There are still more elements Kash has to prove. Never will the burden shift.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 10:15 am to JimEverett
quote:
Never will the burden shift.
Well, I am assuming that the Atlantic is not putting in a defense
Certainly Patel can testify as to its falsity and certainly Patel can show bias and most likely intentionally not doing the research (btw it seems odd that settlements are made at all given your position that nothing ever happens )
The issue is that enough to get to a jury - and the Atlantic just sitting in its hands amd presenting no evidence - seems to be a bold strategy
Posted on 4/25/26 at 10:17 am to Ham Malone
quote:
You pasted an AI summary
I pasted the legal elements
Is there something else in NY Times amd progeny that is different?
Posted on 4/25/26 at 11:15 am to dafif
You pasted the basic elements of libel without the higher standard for a public official described in Sullivan.
My first post in this thread was confusion as to why it’s still going when solid analysis was already provided by those who understand how a case like this works. Time to take my own advice and move on.
My first post in this thread was confusion as to why it’s still going when solid analysis was already provided by those who understand how a case like this works. Time to take my own advice and move on.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 11:31 am to Ham Malone
my prediction: Kash drops this case after either:
1 - he is fired
2 - in a few months when the story won't be so big.
1 - he is fired
2 - in a few months when the story won't be so big.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 1:44 pm to JimEverett
3. The judge may toss it for him.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 1:48 pm to boosiebadazz
4. It's settled out of court and The Atlantic pays Kash several million dollars.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 2:39 pm to AlterEd
Only if he hires you, my dude 
Posted on 4/25/26 at 4:03 pm to texag7
quote:
I don’t think The Atlantic has ever posted a factual article about anything
Per Diamond Crystal Salt corp engineer as well as plant manager, their story about the Lake Peigneur Disaster was the most complete and accurate description of how it all occurred. the only thing it didn't report was that two salt miners went to toke during a break and saw that leakage on that end of the mine was increasing. Their warning is what saved the miners.
Posted on 4/25/26 at 4:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
However…that fact that in a defamation case discovery is basically unlimited and can go into every single facet of a plaintiff’s entire life leads me to believe that it would be foolish for Kash to file the claim if there was any history of substance abuse.
Those two alcohol related arrests, though remote in time are a good base for the defense to build on.
Kash is 0 for 1 with these alcohol related defamation cases, just having the one in TX against Figliuzzi dismissed as he was filing this one.
I think this will ultimately come down to a test of Sullivan and the legacy Gertz and Curtis. We know Justices Thomas and Gorsuch are interested in revisiting it based on their dissents in the denial of cert in Berisha v, Lawson although the idealogical makeup of the court has not changed since cert was denied in that case.
One thing I thought was interesting in the pleadings was the reason to support malice was that Patel denied it before publication. I am not sure that has much merit. I am interested in how the court or jury deals with the timeframe given for comment. My POV may be skewed from a practical perspective but in most cases all I would advise is a blanket statement of denial. Even with 48 hours to respond I think it is dangerous to put anything specific in the written denial that is likely just going to be based on the client's self-serving view.
I think one of three things happen:
1. The Atlantic settles, which I think is unlikely for a number of reasons
2. Kash loses all the way up not being able to prove malice, which I think is most likely
3. SCOTUS revisits Sullivan and its progeny, which I think is the second most likely, but I don't think the votes are there for a large-scale dismantling of Sullivan. Depending on how the case develops, a very narrow crack could open that gives the court the ability to rule for Patel without impacting Sullivan as a whole.
In general, I like Sullivan. I think it should not be a low bar, but I also agree with Justice Thomas that it should not be an impenetrable wall. An acting FBI director, from a constitutional POV is the exact type of person that Sullivan should be directed toward.
I also don't like Thomas' disdain for prong tests, and if Sullivan is overturned or significantly modified and he writes the opinion, it will likely be a very subjective standard, which begets more litigation. I guess I should rejoice for my brethren in such a scenario.
In the end, I think Fitzpatrick gets a couple of sources on record, and this evaporates.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 6:56 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
ETA: here is a link to the opinion itself. Probably a lot of good law in here for people like AlterEd to read
I did read the opinion and I find it interesting that they describe "actual malice" throughout with case law but do not mention the other part of Sullivan which is: " or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Also, the individuals were named and did provide evidence so we shall see if that happens here. Also, the defendant produced their "research documents" so will see if those are produced.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 7:02 am to Ham Malone
quote:
ou pasted the basic elements of libel without the higher standard
Seriously.... we all read the case in our first year.
The first hurdle is whether it is true or not. If no defense as to truth (given their statements do you really think they are going to agree that it is now not true?) then the next step is (1) actual malice or (2) reckless disregard.
Given their statements regarding truth and witnesses ... it seems that a jury might find actual malice if they do not dispute that it is not true given that they lied about it.
Given his position in the government this might reach SCOTUS and justice Thomas may have a say in changing Sullivan.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 7:07 am to Obtuse1
quote:
In general, I like Sullivan. I think it should not be a low bar, but I also agree with Justice Thomas that it should not be an impenetrable wall.
Your post above is very well done. Thanks.
Given the current climate, I am not a fan of Sullivan. I would like to see the threshold lowered. If you print untruthful articles that cast the person in a bad light you need to show significant research and explain why you put the article into the public.
Right now, media is just printing crap against the wall with impunity.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News