Project Veritas WINS ( again ). Defamation suit tossed. by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Project Veritas WINS ( again ). Defamation suit tossed.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Saturday, June 22, 2019 15:20
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1916
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 7:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

All that nonsense about 'deceptively edited ' videos is just that.

Nonsense.

That's 6-0 in court cases, for those keeping score at home.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 22, 2019 9:11 PM

JONGSSTRAW

I like O'Keefe, always have. I'm glad he won his case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:y
I like O'Keefe, always have. I'm glad he won his case.

Glad he's won them all.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:21 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
All that nonsense about 'deceptively edited ' videos is just that.

Nonsense.

Quote:
That's 6-0 in court cases, for those keeping score at home.

Thanks for the update. Keep 'em coming.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 1, 2019 2:56 PM

REAVERFAN

This is what happens when you pack the courts full of reich wing fascists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 4, 2019 8:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverbot:
This is what happens when you pack the courts full

Of reasonable, sensible Judges. Justice happens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 5, 2019 11:04 AM

JONGSSTRAW

So when Veritas wins all these cases do they at least get money awarded to them for damages and legal fees? Do they then countersue for libel and slander?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 22, 2019 3:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

It will likely become more difficult to find what this case was about, so I'll include a copy of a story about it here. I already ran across numerous dead links in the search.

In essence, SJW bimbo working with Democraps inciting violence wanted to sue anybody who exposed her.

NC judge dismisses libel case against Project Veritas
[Associated Press]
EMERY P. DALESIO
,Associated Press•May 22, 2019
Scroll back up to restore default view.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday by a North Carolina woman assaulted outside a 2016 Donald Trump campaign rally who claimed she was then libeled by a conservative group that produces "sting" videos intended to embarrass liberal organizations.

U.S. District Judge Martin Reidinger stopped the trial against Project Veritas, its founder James O'Keefe and its tax-exempt social welfare affiliate Project Veritas Action before jurors considered the case.

Attorneys for O'Keefe and the organization known for videotaping people without their knowledge argued successfully that Shirley Teter's lawyers hadn't proved the videos depicting her were published despite knowing the information was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

Teter, 71, had joined a crowd of protesters outside a Trump rally on Sept. 12, 2016, at an arena a block from her downtown Asheville senior housing apartment. The disabled woman was struck in the face and knocked to the ground, police said. A South Carolina man was arrested days later, but charges were later dropped.

Teter claimed online videos released by Project Veritas Action Fund linked her to a purported plot by Democratic operatives to incite violence at Trump campaign rallies. She said that was untrue.

The judge said before issuing his decision that political discourse risked being hampered if citizens and the media were handcuffed by fear of legal liability, but the law also needs to impose some standard of responsibility. The line in this case was between what the law requires for proof and what jurors can decide is the truth, Reidinger said.

"While the internet has broadened the number and the variety of available voices in the marketplace of ideas, it has also served to undermine the public's confidence in the veracity of those sources," Reidinger said, according to a transcript of Wednesday's court session. "That fine line has to be walked. And I think that walking that fine line required this court to take a close look at what issues are really for this court and what issues are really for this jury."

The judge decided Teter's lawyers didn't present clear and convincing evidence that there was actual malice — that is, knowing or not caring whether statements in the videos were false. O'Keefe's attorneys contended Teter was required to prove actual malice because she became a public figure after speaking to the news media about the assault.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE