9 : The Spreading Malice
Judge Cohen then called witnesses and these stated that this report was all a tissue of lies and utterly baseless and sheer nonsense. But Judge Cohen checked this statement for 1940 and 1941 and found it to be absolutely correct. Then how can we explain this recent stir? And the Judge asked the members of the Rabbinical Association to draw their own inference. It was at the end of March, 1941, when the monthly payment of two of the rabbis was terminated. Shortly after this the rumors began to circulate and became a vicious slander. It was definitely proven that not 50,000 chickens were slaughtered in this section, but rather only 25,000 a week. Judge Cohen felt that evil rumors were being spread in malice, so that even though he had previously never met Rabbi Soloveitchik, he now was definitely convinced that the Rabbi was dreadfully abused and baselessy accused.
9 : The Spreading Malice
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS re: 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (DE-27) filed by Fox News Network, LLC. Plaintiff Karen McDougal claims to have been defamed by accusations of "extortion&q uot; leveled at her by Tucker Carlson on Defendant Fox News Network's broadcast. However, as described herein, Ms. McDougal has not offered a plausible interpretation that the statements Mr. Carlson made, when read in context, are statemen ts of fact. The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation. In addition, as a public figure, Ms. McDougal must raise a plausible inference of actual malice to sustain her defamation claim. She has failed to do so. The Amended Complaint offers only conclusory allegations about Mr. Carlson's alleged biases and otherwise pursues theories that are pre-empte d by long-standing precedent. For these reasons, Defendant Fox News's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF #28] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to close the case. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 9/23/2020) (mro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
2. Colossians 3:6-10 It is because of these things that the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. You used to behave like them as you lived among them. But now you must also get rid of anger, wrath, malice, slander, obscene speech, and all such sins. Do not lie to one another, for you have stripped off the old nature with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new nature, which is being renewed in full knowledge, consistent with the image of the one who created it.
3. Titus 3:2-6 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.
5. Proverbs 26:25-26 Though their speech is charming, do not believe them, for seven abominations fill their hearts. Their malice may be concealed by deception, but their wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.
Psalm 28:2-5 Hear my cry for mercy as I call to you for help, as I lift up my hands toward your Most Holy Place. Do not drag me away with the wicked, with those who do evil, who speak cordially with their neighbors but harbor malice in their hearts. Repay them for their deeds and for their evil work; repay them for what their hands have done and bring back on them what they deserve. Because they have no regard for the deeds of the LORD and what his hands have done, he will tear them down and never build them up again.
Citizens have long been able to bring defamation suits over published works under state libel laws. But it wasn't until 1964, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in a case involving an advertisement commenting on police in Montgomery, Alabama, that the Supreme Court said that a state's libel laws were subject to free speech protections of the First Amendment. In that landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate about public issues and established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case. In this March 7, 1960 photo, police and firefighters train fire hoses on a crowd of blacks in Montgomery, Ala., as they gathered at a church for a planned march to the state capitol. They authorities blocked them while an angry white crowd stoody by. (AP Photo/Horace Cort, used with permission from the Associated Press)
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.
The privilege is lost if the publication was actuated by malice. Once the defense has demonstrated that the qualified privilege applies, you have the burden of defeating it by showing malice.
Journalists, for example, have qualified privilege to write about and discuss public-interest matters. If they get the facts wrong, they should not be held liable unless they acted with actual malice.8
Likewise, when an allegedly defamatory statement involves a matter of public concern (as opposed to a private matter), you have the burden to prove that the defendant acted with malice.11
These evils are not required by the Constitution, nor are they a necessary consequence of a free society. They are, instead, the artificial product of the actual malice standard imposed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. But what the Warren Court wrought the Roberts Court can correct. It should do so and restore to the nation the possibility of a public culture in which the press is free but not licentious and the public discourse is spirited but not abusive or mendacious.
C. whereas Russia has been engaging in disinformation of an unparalleled malice and magnitude across both traditional media outlets and social media platforms, in order to deceive its citizens at home and the international community on the eve of and during its war of aggression against Ukraine, which Russia started on 24 February 2022, proving that even information can be weaponised;
AE. whereas online platforms can be easily accessible and affordable tools for those engaging in information manipulation and other interference, such as hate and harassment, damaging the health and safety of our online communities, silencing opponents, espionage or spreading disinformation; whereas their functioning has been proven to encourage polarised and extreme opinions at the expense of fact-based information; whereas platforms have their own interests and may not be neutral in processing information; whereas some online platforms greatly benefit from the system that amplifies division, extremism and polarisation; whereas online space has become just as important for our democracy as physical space and therefore needs corresponding rules;
48. Calls for regulation and actions to oblige platforms, especially those with a systemic risk to society, to do their part to reduce information manipulation and interference, for instance by using labels that indicate the true authors behind accounts, limiting the reach of accounts regularly used to spread disinformation or that regularly break the terms and conditions of the platform, suspending and, if necessary and based on clear legislation, deleting inauthentic accounts used for coordinated interference campaigns or demonetising disinformation-spreading sites, setting up mitigation measures for interference risks posed by the effects of their algorithms, advertising models, recommender systems and AI technologies, and flagging disinformation content in both posts and comments; recalls the need for these measures to be implemented in a transparent and accountable way;
114. Stresses the need for proper crisis management procedures for information manipulation cases, including alert systems between administrative levels and sectors, in order to ensure the provision of mutual information and prevent information manipulation from spreading; welcomes, in this regard, the Rapid Alert System (RAS) and rapid alert procedure established prior to the 2019 European elections and the procedures in place in the Commission and Parliament administrations to warn of possible cases affecting the institutions or EU democratic processes; asks the EU administration to strengthen its monitoring, inter alia through the establishment of a central repository and incident tracking tool, and to develop a shared toolbox to be activated in the event of an RAS alert; 041b061a72