> The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.
No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.
They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.
It feels pretty ironic that this article takes a jab at FB with the fake news comment and then NYT, which arguably should be held to a higher bar for pieces like this, gets a pass on fact checking.
It's not an article, though. It's an editorial, which simply isn't the same format. It's a self-promotion for an author critical of Silicon Valley. It's not reporting news, but an author representing his views on a broad subject with a particular (attempt at) focus on a recent issue.
Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.
It's a difficult fact to discern but still a statement of fact that shouldn't be made without evidence, in this world where people are fired because the media claims they think that.
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand the law: to prove libel, it's not necessary to prove that the claim is false, only that the defendant is unable to prove it's true.
> I'm not a lawyer but as I understand the law: to prove libel, it's not necessary to prove that the claim is false, only that the defendant is unable to prove it's true.
You are wrong in US law; the burden of proof for falsity is on the plaintiff.
Of course, the standard of proof in most civil cases is only preponderance of the evidence, so you only need more convincing evidence than the defense has, but the burden is still on the plaintiff.
And for a public figure on a matter of concern, you have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth.
Apparently it's more complicated than either of us think.
> The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.
But if these jury instructions are correct and up to date, California remains one of the states where truth is an affirmative defense.
> [Name of defendant] is not responsible for [name of plaintiff]’s harm, if any, if [he/she] proves that [his/her] statement(s) about [name of plaintiff] [was/were] true. [Name of defendant] does not have to prove that the statement(s) [was/were] true in every detail, so long as the statement(s) [was/were] substantially true.
Of course, this is for private plaintiffs on matters of private concern. If Peter Thiel was ruled a public figure, libel would be essentially impossible to prove.
No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.
They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.