DU Lawyers: Is this Defamation of David Hogg?

[TheBlackAdder]

.

Some rightwing broadcaster spewed a bunch of stuff about David Hogg.

It sounds like he should have run it past legal first. What do you think?

Someone should tell Bernstein that it's really an ugly look for an internet opportunist, even if he is projecting. “David Hogg is an opportunist. He is not a victim. He has used this tragedy to make a name for himself. He is exploiting this shooting in order to make a name for himself."
.
.
Bernstein wasn't finished. Not by a long shot. Also ironic: At one point in his little rant there's a graphic behind him saying "Truth is the new hate speech."
.
.
“This kid, David Hogg, is not concerned about gun safety,” Bernstein speculated. “He is concerned about pushing an agenda and making a name for himself, and, to be quite frank, I honestly wonder if this kid has something to do with the Stoneman shooting.”
.
.
"Give me a break,” he went on. “It seems very odd. My gut tells me that this kid was either warned beforehand—knew he wasn’t going to be shot, knew he wasn’t going to be targeted—or was affiliated in some way with Nikolas Cruz.”

Check out the C&L commentary along with the video at:

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/03/rights-dreadful-defamation-david-hogg

.

[Motley13]

1. I suggest a good lawyer, Michael Avenatti

Whatever that kid chooses for himself, he will succeed

[spanone]

2. what planet are these people from? not ours, I hope

[Lee-Lee]

3. At this point he meets the definition of a public figure

As such even wild conspiracy theories like that won’t be legally actionable, especially since he went the “I wonder” route instead of outright claiming it’s true or fact.

[crazycatlady]

9. He is 17 right?

I wonder if the laws are different for public figures who are minors? (Granted, I know many child stars have been subject to worse).

[hedda_foil]

13. Are you saying this as an attorney? I don't see how he qualifies as a public figure at all.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Not an attorney

But he has inserted himself into the public debate and dialogue as an activist. That clearly is within what courts have said is a public figure in the past.

If you make it a point to go on TV and on stage as part of a national debate, you are a public figure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. You're correct. You can be either a public figure for all purposes,

which would be someone who is generally well-known by the public, like a major politician, a movie star, or other celebrity. Or they can be a "limited purpose public figure," someone who has "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

[aikoaiko]

4. because Hogg keeps saying that the RW crazies are boosting his views and profiles

he might have a hard time proving injury.

[Hoyt]

6. He's only interested in demonstrating that gunners criticizing him are callous old warped fools

who have no business owning and profiting from these weapons.

He's doing great at that.

[Kingofalldems]

11. I noticed republicans don't like this kid at all.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Possible. One area of defamation per se is accusing one of criminal behavior.

Of course, Hogg at this point is a public figure, meaning that the standard to prove defamation is heightened (the alleged defamer must have known or should have known the information was false before publishing or propagating it.)

The initial statement is opinion and not actionable. But specifically accusing him of actual criminal behavior is not. Might be a little bit of wiggle room because he says, "My gut tells me...."

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. Stupid, not defamatory nt

[Kingofalldems]

8. A couple interesting responses here-- and just like clockwork too.

He should absolutely sue.

[djg21]

16. No.

It’s obviously a statement of opinion, and not factual, so it cannot be proven false and cannot be defamatory. Any lawsuit would border on frivolous.

[Kingofalldems]

10. Looks like Trump supporters all say no defamation.

I disagree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Of course it's defamation; the problem is proving the claim

where the plaintiff is a public figure (the legal definition of which is someone who has intentionally become involved in a public controversy). A public figure has the burden of proving the statements were made with intentional malice, which means either knowing the statement was false or was made with reckless disregard of the facts. That's not "Trump supporters" saying that; it's the law: New York Times v. Sullivan.

[struggle4progress]

17. Aint done nothing if you aint been called a red