Will a Judge's Ruling Against CNN Make It Easier to Sue the Media?

[mjr]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...e-media-976933

So it looks like if this moves forward, it may be easier for news organizations and media outlets to be sued in the future.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well it would be easier to sue the media. But it also might be a bit of a clusterfuck too. The dispute is the mechanism with which a statistic was arrived at - something (if we're honest) 80% of the population is too busy or too stupid to care about most of the time.

At the same time a ruling like this would absolutely cause chaos for everyone including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Breitbart, HuffPo, etc. since the liklihood of prevailing isn't factored in. I greatly suspect this would get smacked down in the Supreme Court, not because in our overtly politicized environment they support CNN, but specifically what it would mean for the highly partisan News orgs.

[mjr]

Well it would be easier to sue the media. But it also might be a bit of a clusterfuck too. The dispute is the mechanism with which a statistic was arrived at - something (if we're honest) 80% of the population is too busy or too stupid to care about most of the time.

At the same time a ruling like this would absolutely cause chaos for everyone including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Breitbart, HuffPo, etc. since the liklihood of prevailing isn't factored in. I greatly suspect this would get smacked down in the Supreme Court, not because in our overtly politicized environment they support CNN, but specifically what it would mean for the highly partisan News orgs.

That's all valid.

It could, also, result in media being a bit more cautious and/or thorough in how they report things, couldn't it?

I don't know if that would be good or bad, but that could be a potential result, too.

[s_stabeler]

I'm not sure it actually matters- what got struck down is defendants being able to get libel cases dismissed before discovery when it was considered unlikely that the case would succeed. That's actually dangerous, because it technically means that if you're going up against a megacorp, they can claim SLAPP even when there is a potential case, because it's unlikely to succeed.

In short, all the case actually means is you have to demonstrate that there actually is a case to answer- even if it might be a challenge for you to win.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

But here's the flip of that:

It also means if I have some small blog that I run, it means MegaCorp can continually lodge differing versions of lawsuits that are unlikely to succeed but cumulatively bankrupt me in the process since my ability to have them struck down as frivolous (and you generally have to prove intent in that case) becomes non-existent.

In reality, those laws exist so Peter Thiel actually has to find semi-legitimate people with grievances to try to silence a media outlet. Remove that requirement, he just needs to find enough people willing to take the financial hit on lawsuits with no chance of success.

[s_stabeler]

actually, no. To cut a long story short, the court ruled that in Federal Court, the Federal procedures apply- which means the analysis is on the plausibility of the claim- in other words, is the plaintiff wasting everyone's time?