From the Hollywood Reporter, we have the following:
Donald Trump probably doesn't know about it, but the guy who once
said he wanted to open up libel laws will probably be quite pleased by a
new ruling from a Georgia federal judge. In fact, the stakes in this
case are so high we wouldn't be surprised if it eventually lands before
the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially makes it easier to sue
entertainment and media outlets. There's a reason why the Motion Picture
Association of America submitted an amicus brief in this case.
The lawsuit is Davide Carbone v. Cable News Network.
Carbone was the chief executive of West Palm Beach, Fla.-based St.
Mary's Medical Center until CNN reported in June 2015 that the infant
mortality rate for open-heart surgery there was three times the national
average. Reporters for Anderson Cooper's CNN show aggressively covered
the death of babies at the hospital and even went to Carbone's home in
an attempt to get comment. Instead, he closed his garage door on them.
Later, he was forced to resign.
His defamation lawsuit followed.
What makes this case so important is how a judge addressed CNN's attempt to strike the lawsuit.
Many states have anti-SLAPP statutes in the interest of guarding
against frivolous lawsuits attacking First Amendment activity. Georgia
is one of them. Under these SLAPP statutes, plaintiffs have to show a
likelihood of prevailing before the case moves any further.
But under federal civil procedure law, plaintiffs only need to demonstrate the plausibility
of claims before a motion to dismiss is denied. So the question is —
which standard should be used? If a judge just goes with plausibility
instead of probability, it means that plaintiffs in a range of cases
involving First Amendment activity — not just defamation, but also
intellectual property, privacy and so forth — get an easier road past
initial hurdles and into discovery.
Read the full story at The Hollywood Reporter, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment