BREAKING, We’ve made it past motion to dismiss in Defamation lawsuit in Project Veritas v NYT!!!
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 18, 2021
We’re going to depose them on videotape and we’re going to WIN.
Who’s laughing now Dean Baquet? pic.twitter.com/YS4tq5dxRT
This win in Project Veritas v NYT
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 20, 2021
Our attorneys confirmed this is the only case they are aware of where NYT lost on Motion to Dismiss without appeal since 1965, AND the FIRST CASE EVER where NYT lost under NY’s new Anti-SLAPP laws enacted last year.
We’re making history folks. pic.twitter.com/Sep3v3UgoI
MUST READ sections of NY Supreme Court Judge motion advancing our lawsuit in Project Veritas v New York Times: "if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article...it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader ... that it is opinion." pic.twitter.com/ee5Ro8x2yZ
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 19, 2021
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 25, 2021
Project Veritas v New York Times:
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 24, 2021
Typically, once you get past motion to dismiss, @nytimes offers money and attempts to settle.
What do you think we should do?
President Trump congratulates Project Veritas on win in defamation lawsuit Project Veritas v New York Times
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 23, 2021
"Whatever you can do for their legal defense fund. We're with them all the way."
Support our fight: https://t.co/62tlJSDW1e pic.twitter.com/yQ06JLCpVA
Justice C. Wood of the New York State Supreme Court stated in his ruling that, "The Articles that are the subject of this action called the [Veritas] Video 'deceptive', but the dictionary definitions of 'disinformation' and 'deceptive' provided by [the New York Times'] counsel pic.twitter.com/y95r4txzzA
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 23, 2021
... certainly apply to [Times reporters Maggie] Astor's and [Tiffany] Hsu's failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim.”
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 23, 2021
The New York Supreme Court clears hurdle for Project Veritas defamation lawsuit against NYT to move forward. The court denied NYT's request for the case to be dismissed, & their application for anti-SLAPP relief was also denied. https://t.co/5snDhJDKNm
— Andy Ngรด (@MrAndyNgo) March 20, 2021
"If a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion."----"The Articles that are the subject of this action called the Video 'deceptive,' but the dictionary definitions of 'disinformation' and 'deceptive' provided by defendants' counsel certainly apply to Astor's and Hsu's failure to note that they injected their opinions in news articles, as they now claim."
"Stating that the video is 'deceptive' and stating 'without verifiable evidence' in a factual way in a news article certainly presents the statement as fact, not opinion."----"Further, the Astor and Hsu Articles could be viewed as exposing Veritas to ridicule and harm to its reputation as a media source because the reader may read these news Articles, expecting facts, not opinion, and conclude that Veritas is a partisan zealot group, deceptively editing video, and presenting it as news."
"This ruling means Project Veritas will now be able to put New York Times reporter Maggie Astor and New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet under oath where they will be forced to answer our questions. Project Veritas will record these depositions and expose them for the world to see."
New York Times responds! Danielle Rhoades Ha, vice president of communications for the New York Times:
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 21, 2021
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision”
Well we’re disappointed with NYT calling our MN videos “deceptive,” “disinformation”https://t.co/eSb0Oguu1a
Turley: “Project Veritas won a major victory against the New York Times this week in a defamation case with potentially wide reach...I expect to be teaching this case next year in my torts class when we deal with defamation.”
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 21, 2021
https://t.co/TPg6Lw19Bc
This is so delicious from #ProjectVeritas @JamesOKeefeIII “You’re guilty of what you accuse me of... It’s a sign of mental illness. Karl Jung talked about it. Freud talked about it. It’s projection”. https://t.co/HBUVSA2pdu
— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) March 25, 2021
Actually, it is a win as this is the only case where NYT lost on Motion to Dismiss without appeal since 1965 and the first case ever where NYT lost under NY’s new Anti-SLAPP laws.
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 22, 2021
I’ll circle back when PV deposes the NYT activists on vid & they admit they got the facts wrong. https://t.co/tHJkLctdcZ
Name one edit. NAME ONE.
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) March 22, 2021
Ive gotten 335 corrections. 8 lawsuit wins.
Put your rep on the line @Tom4CongressNY6. Name ONE “deceptive edit” since our charter in April 2011.
I bet you 10K you can’t do it
It’s all circularly sourced opinion you’re citing, hence the judges ruling https://t.co/vD2CgLLeVN
Readers need to know that this has been a deliberate, pre-meditated attempt to parse every single news story through the prism of CRT. In absolutely everything. There's a reason the NYT reads like a critical theory seminar. It is *designed* that way. https://t.co/cN2tvily1u
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) March 22, 2021
We see this all the time. Does NPR refer to the “so-called” Equality Act? Seems the epithet is strategically deployed. https://t.co/s1ZrgHxnkd
— Jason Bedrick (@JasonBedrick) March 22, 2021
Media vs. Truth pic.twitter.com/REgWcwLbxq
— James Lindsay, Donald Trump of intellectuals (@ConceptualJames) March 20, 2021
๐จD.C. Circuit Judge Silberman just released a truly wild dissent calling on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, claiming NYT and WaPo are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets," and accusing "big tech" of censoring conservatives. https://t.co/NvFli5sEso pic.twitter.com/mTMklTlNfo
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 19, 2021
Judge Silberman explicitly attacks Twitter for restricting the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story, complains that "there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News," and writes that "Democratic Party ideological control" of the media is "a threat to a viable democracy."
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 19, 2021
Silberman's final footnote: "The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias at academic institutions." Doesn't elaborate. https://t.co/NvFli5sEso
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 19, 2021
Never ceases to be darkly hilarious how these Super Serious Intelligence Assessments always try to pin Russia as uniquely nefarious for allegedly "exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US" -- as though that's not the core business model of US corporate media pic.twitter.com/zUbGWfLshQ
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) March 17, 2021
The opinion calls out the New York Times for blurring the line between opinion and fact. It is a common complaint as major news media yield to the “echo chamber” model of journalism—appealing to the bias of readers or viewers in offering slanted coverage. https://t.co/HbcGUdJgOJ
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 21, 2021
UPDATE 5/7/21 at 12:33pm: Added info below....Notably, this follows another significant loss by the New York Times to Sarah Palin last year. Having two such losses for the New York Times in the defamation area is ironic given its role in establishing the precedent under New York Times v. Sullivan.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 21, 2021
UPDATE: @nytimes FORCED to Answer Veritas’s Defamation Lawsuit – NYT Admits They Did Not Contact Veritas’s Named Sources for Comment; Admits Astor Article WRONG About MN Law; Claims Articles Are Opinion While Admitting Reporters Not Opinion Writers pic.twitter.com/2gXd7veuHR
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) April 28, 2021
This is an important case for anyone who cares about the truth. I discuss it at length in the new season of my show “Lara Logan Has No Agenda” on Fox Nation about ‘Privacy in the Digital Age’. It comes out soon! https://t.co/N31sUm9RRt
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) April 28, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment