|
|
|
|
|
BRIMELOW vs.
NEW YORK TIMES: Oral Arguments Set For August 31
|
|
"Taking on the New York Times will be horribly expensive. But we honestly feel we have no choice.
And, while the New York Times can well afford litigation, my experience in the MSM was that libel actions are an immensely painful and salutary experience for the defendant regardless of the outcome.
But it is a check on libel that can only be activated if victims litigate." - Peter Brimelow
|
|
"Our appeal in our libel case Brimelow vs. New York Times has been accepted for oral argument i.e., an appearance before a judge, which is a good sign. It will be heard in the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals on August 31, 2021.
Earlier and significantly, District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla had found that the New York Times’ smear in the original January 15, 2019 article—that I am an "open white nationalist"—was a factual allegation, and thus potentially libelous. Since the disastrous 1964 Sullivan decision, and its 1974 extension in Gertz, Main Stream Media outlets have routinely claimed that absolutely anything they say is “opinion,” and hence protected. But Judge Failla deprived the New York Times of this escape route. Unfortunately, she then claimed that the New York Times’ later "stealth edit," removing the word “open” (and adding a hyperlink to the discredited CultMarx vigilante gang the Southern Poverty Law Center), provided sufficient "context" to let it off the hook.
In fact, of course, the New York Times is still arrogantly refusing to acknowledge this stealth edit in print, despite claiming such acknowledgements as a point of honor in its published code of conduct. So the original libel still stands—no reader dependent on the hard-copy edition of the newspaper will know a correction has been made. And it remains, uncorrected, in e.g., the Congressional Record.
In other words, the New York Times has admitted it was wrong implicitly, but won’t fess up explicitly.
(I get email from readers arguing that I shouldn’t sue the New York Times because I should be proud to be called a “white nationalist.”
This misses the point. VDARE.com has repeatedly said that it regards “white nationalism,” in the sense of the political defense of white interests, as legitimate and even inevitable in a multiracial society. But it’s simply not a title that I personally can claim. The New York Times may think I’m an “open white nationalist,” but the fact is that I have repeatedly rejected this honor.
My position is that I am a civic nationalist, albeit a pessimistic one, i.e., I look forward to voting for Michelle Malkin when she runs for President on an Immigration Moratorium plank. So the New York Times was just WRONG, and hence vulnerable (as its stealth edit made clear it knows). Moreover, in the current climate, an accusation of “white nationalism” is very serious—it makes you a target of the Biden Regime’s ongoing communist coup.
Ironically, but to our great joy, the heroic Project Veritas subsequently prevailed in an identical opinion vs. fact action against the New York Times in New York State court. Of course, that litigation continues. But we take this as a further sign that the disastrous Sullivan decision is crumbling. After all, the media in the rest of the Anglosphere get along without it, and the U.S. did fine without it for over 200 years.
- Peter Brimelow... (full article here)
|
|
|
|
|
|