Despite the title of this blog post, there is no lawsuit (yet) between Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, and The New York Times.
But the discussion about a potential lawsuit is a good lesson in how complicated libel cases can be, even when dealing with public figures.
First, a brief summary of events. Early in October, reports about Donald Trump's comments about women surfaced and were widely reported by news organizations. This is no surprise, as there is intense attention on the candidates running for the highest elected office in the United States.
What followed was a report by The New York Times in which two women spoke on the record alleging that Trump touched them inappropriately. Here's a link to the original news report: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?emc=edit_na_20161012&nlid=68602008&ref=headline&_r=2
Since then, more women have stepped forward to discuss Trump's comments about and behavior toward women.
As a result, Trump's lawyer sent a letter to The New York Times demanding a retraction and threatening a libel lawsuit. Here's a link to the letter: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/DemandForRetraction.PDF
The next day, counsel for The New York Times responded. Here's a link to that letter: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/13/us/politics/david-mccraw-trump-letter.html
Since then, there's been a lot of discussion about the potential lawsuit and what all of this means. And, this is all happening as the election draws closer and early voting has begun in many states.
So, read the article and letters linked above and share your reaction to this. Note: I'm not necessarily asking you to comment on whether Trump or Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, should be president. Instead, use what you are learning about libel to comment on these letters.
Who do you think might prevail if this went to trial? Does Trump have a chance to win this case, or is The New York Times right? Be sure to explain why you think so.
And, please remember to include your first name, last name initial and which class you're in (morning, afternoon or online).
192 comments:
If this lawsuit went to trial I do not think that Trump would win. However, I think he should still take this to trial because if he loses the only downside would be court fees which are inconsequential to him because he has enormous financial resources. The reason I think he would not win is because the history of a plaintiff winning a libel suit in any situation is very low. In a libel case the plaintiff has to prove a great deal in order for their case to stand. In my opinion, I do not think that either party is "right" in this suit. Trump allegedly did something terrible but I wouldn't be surprised if the victims were paid to lie by Clinton in order to give Clinton a hold on the election. The fact that these victims are all from almost a decade ago and only chose to come forward now is very suspicious. Both candidates are terrible so this situation does not really make a difference.
Andrew W. Afternoon class.
Corey R. 11 am T-Th
Considering the cases that we have went over so far that have to do with libel, I would definitely say that Trump would win over New York Times. The conversation that went on between him and Bush whether locker room talk or not should not matter due to the fact that it was a private conversation, therefore making it protected under the first amendment. Those women probably would have never said anything if this wasn’t leaked, or they are perhaps lying. With that being said I believe Trump would and should win the case no matter what he said.
What a stunning response from The New York Times! I think the paper’s rebuke perfectly covered all of the bases in regard to the ridiculous threat of a lawsuit from the Trump camp.
Donald Trump’s status as a public figure, along with the fact that he initiated the conversation leading to these allegations puts him in a very tight position if he hopes to sue on the grounds of libel. His own, personal comments were the spark that ignited the conversation, and the women who have come forward, and are essentially being called liars (as a libel lawsuit would imply) are merely confirming Trump’s own words.
In order for Trump to win a case such as this, his lawyers will need to prove actual malice- that The New York Times knowingly published false information, or published said information with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Seeing how both of the claims of sexual misconduct took place several years ago, and that both of the women have gone on the record with specific and similar accounts, I don’t see how Trump’s lawyers will be able to prove that the Times had known the information to be false.
His lawyers would have a slightly easier time proving that the Times acted with a reckless disregard for the truth, but even this would be exceptionally difficult to prove as both of the women are credible sources, and have gone on the record with their claims.
I think that The Times is absolutely correct in its response. The content of the message addresses a highly newsworthy subject that has a significant influence in the public sector. As far as the record shows, the claims are accurate and truthful, or at the very least, and in the context of the discussion Trump himself started, not too unrealistic to be considered false. The newspaper simply responded to the discussion that Trump began by backing up the claims he made in 2005.
If Trump does intend to take the matter to court, his lawyers will have their work cut out for them as both the burden of proof and the damages will be nearly impossible to prove. Even if the information published was false, the Times could argue that Trump’s reputation was damaged by the words that came out of his own mouth, rather than the echo published in the paper.
-Denver Donchez, 11 a.m. class
Katy F, 11AM Morning Class
In my opinion, I think The New York Times would win this case, if taken to trial, because I don't believe that Trump can prove damages to his reputation that were not already there in the first place. Trump may have a chance to win because there is dissemination and identification but when it comes to defamation, actual malice and proof of damages, Trump has shot himself in the foot. Even though the conversation between Trump and Bush was in private, Trump still said those comments about sexually assaulting women to another person and didn't care about his reputation so he can't prove any increased damage to his reputation. If he thought that those statements would harm his reputation, then he wouldn't have said them in the first place so he can't win against anyone saying "you already had a bad reputation thanks to your own words out of your own mouth!" None of the cases have labeled Trump innocent or labeled the women as liars so until ALL of those cases are investigated, Trump cannot claim defamation because no one knows if the statements are true or false. The only reason the cases of sexual assault seem true are because Trump himself SAID THEY WERE! When it comes to this case, Trump cannot prove actual malice because the only reason the New York Times would give exposure to these women, is if the theme of sexual assault was brought up in the Trump campaign and it was...when Trump started talking about it. If you don't want people thinking you're a robber, than don't go around telling everyone how you robbed banks back in the day. It's your word against your word and that is the predicament Trump is in.
Katy F.
So I guess what I should have said is, Trump cannot win because I learned in your class "if the plaintiff cannot prove ALL of the elements of libel, then the plaintiff loses. 2 out of 5 is not going to cut it for Trump.
Keren A t/r 2:00
Speaking of either presidential candidate is a touchy subject and the amount of distrust surrounding both of them muddies this case. Trump has self incriminated multiple times regarding sexual advances on women, and as a woman I find having this knowledge of a presidential candidate extremely important. The argument that these women might be paid by Clinton to fabricate these stories has some validity when concerning some of Clinton's other actions. However the New York Times states in its letter that the reporters did diligent research and for me that ceases the argument that these might be false. In the video the Victim discusses her fear of coming forward about her experience which is only now validated in the immediate assumption that she is a liar, this in turn reinforces rape culture which Donald Trump supports in his locker room conversations. The New York times is entirely correct in stating that no damage has been done to his reputation that he has not contributed to himself making his libel argument that much harder.Another issue is proving the victims stories false, if the New York Times has done the proper research and can prove that the statements are true Trump will have even less of a case. Despite the fact that I confidently believe he will lose, I believe he should still sue because the result would have a direct reflection on how far rape culture has come in America.
This is a great situation for our media class to observe considering the discussions we just had concerning Oprah's intentions about the U.S. beef industry when she said,"just stopped me cold from eating another burger." Let us not forget the court ruled in favor of Oprah.
The key I believe to both libel claims, the beef industry and Trump, is when Professor Martinez, said Tuesday,"It all goes back to the Sullivan decision."
Moreover, remember the book reads, that for the first time the Sullivan ruling "applied the protections of the First Amendment to the law of libel." Also stating the court's decision was based on the premise that "to readily punish a media organization for publishing criticism of government officials was contrary to "the central meaning of the first amendment.""
Of course Trump is not a government official, but we all know he is publicly campaigning to be nominated as one. Therefore, I believe a court would view him as one.
In the Sullivan ruling, Justice Brennan, wrote that for the Alabama Police Commissioner to win his suit against the Times he would have to prove the editorial-advertisement was knowingly published with false information or reckless disregard for the truth. Brennan also wrote this new standard of fault was called "actual malice."
Trump holds the same "burden of proof" to prove actual malice or reckless negligence. The reason I believe Trump would not be able to prove the statements as false is because well, he didn't file the lawsuit now did he?
Ultimately, I agree with the Times response that they simply did what the law allows by publishing newsworthy information and that it would be a disservice to democracy itself to silence these women's voices.
Houston Y. 2:00 p.m.
Alex Light, 2pm Tuesday/Thursday
I believe that the NYT would win this case. After reviewing multiple cases in class regarding news paper presses and public figures, he has a very slim chance of proving actual malice or any other type of libel in court. Even though he has he capability to provide himself a great lawyer, I don't think Donald has the slimmest of chances to win. His own words will be the fault of his failure.
I think Trump will lose the case if he proceeds to file a civil lawsuit. He will have to prove that the New York Times acted with actual malice, since he's a public figure. It's hard to prove that NYT acted with actual malice considering there's video recording of him suggesting he likes to "grab [them] by their pussy."
This will be an open-and-closed case for the NYT. It will be difficult for Trump to prove actual malice.
Andrea Tullos
11am TTR
I think if this was brought to trial that Trump would probably lose. It is very hard for a plaintiff to win in a libel court case. I feel like after the leaked recordings of Trump doing his locker room talk, it would be hard for him to prove that he didn't mess with these women. However, I find it very weird that these women are coming out YEARS later and that of course they come out and speak about these actions right before the presidency election. I just believe it will be very hard for Trump to prove actual malice especially after his leaked recording.
Overall, I dont think he would win, but I think its very weird and suspicious how this came out at such a convenient time....
Cody W.; afternoon class
Shanae M. (Online)
Likely, Trump would not win his suit. But there can be a more powerful court: public opinion. And love him or hate him, he does know how to get people arguing about his case- whatever it may be.
Truthfully, the only way to win would be to prove that the stories were false and that the NYT knowingly published them which had a negative result on his reputation. (You are allowed to hurt someone's reputation with truthful and ethical journalism, but not with a lie).
So, taking those elements into consideration, did the women lie? Let's assume that they told the truth. (It is virtually impossible to prove that something did or did not happen after decades). So, let's take them at their word.
Now, the interesting one is whether or not the NYT published this with the intent of hurting his reputation whether or not the information was correct. Truthfully, this one would be easier to prove (should he choose to). Politico published this article (with corroborating articles) that 91% of media coverage on Trump are negative: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297
So, maybe he can say that there is this mass conspiracy (as he has claimed before) that the MSM is against him. Seems there is evidence for that. But, I think that he would still lose in the court because the information that the NYT published is newsworthy and (unless they colluded in some way) they would have no reason to believe that these women lied.
I would be interested to know in what way public opinion has (if ever) influenced a ruling, however. I have taken many journalism and media classes and have been asked this semester alone, this specific question about Trump about 4 times. Yet, I have never been asked whether or not the press has a right to demand an interview from Hillary after she refused a press conference for a year, or whether or not James O'Keefe is a great citizen journalist or a criminal for shining a light on the mass voter fraud with the DNC etc etc. I think the fact that 91% of what is said about the man is negative, and yet there is SO MUCH interesting journalism going on out there in regards to the DNC and Clinton Campaign and it isn't being talked about.... maybe Trump would be able to prove that there was a conspiracy to purposefully attack his character unethically.
If he could prove that, which would be a long shot, he might win. But I think that the would not even try, honestly. I think it was one of the many things that he just simply says without really thinking about it too much to flex his muscle. But we'll see. The press should go after EVERY politician VERY hard. But, they need to be checked to make sure that they are being ethical about it.
Victoria G
Online course
I Don't think Trump would win this case because it would prove very difficult to prove that he did not do the things those women said he did. I think it does look suspicious that this just so happened to come out with about a month to Election Day but I also understand the urgency of this situation and how fast this came out. Even though that video surfaced of him saying those things and it was recorded without Trump knowing I think it says something of his character of the things he says when he thinks no one is watching him. I personally loved the response to Trump and it reminded me of the cases we have been going through in class.
Hannah, B (Afternoon)
I think New York Times will undoubtedly win the case. Because he's (unfortunately) a pretty prominent figure these days, Trump has to prove that the NYT acted on actual malice in publishing. Trump has dug himself into unavoidable ditches in the last few weeks of the election with the leakage of his locker room talk, the testimonies from multiple women and his overall persona in everyday activity, I don't think there's any way Trump could convince a jury that he wasn't guilty. Like discussed in class, ALL elements of libel must be proven by the plaintiff. Bottom line, with everything he's thrown to the dogs recently, there's no way that would ever happen.
After learning about the cases we have gone over in class that have to do with libel, I say that Trump has no chance of winning over The New York Times. Donald Trump would have to prove all elements of libel and because he is a public figure he would have to prove damages to his reputation which the leaked video and his actions did that for him already. Trump would not win because it will be very difficult for him to prove actual malice due to his public figure status.
T, Th
2:00PM
If this case were to go to trial - and I hope it does - I believe The Times would win.
Trump is threatening to sue for libel per se, meaning that the words themselves were defamatory. However, thanks to Sullivan, we know that if Trump does indeed choose to sue, he will have to prove actual malice, which is very difficult to do.
Trump's lawyers must prove that The Times published the article knowing that the information was false or did so with a reckless disregard for the truth. The Times conducted several interviews - including Trump - before the publication of the article. The women and the sources they mentioned were all willing to go on the record and discuss what the accusers told them they day of the incident or, in one case, several years later. Although Trump's claim that everything the women are saying is all "lies," he, as the plaintiff in the case, has the burden of proof. Trump must prove in court that what the women are saying are in fact lies in order to win his libel case.
As for Trump's reputation, I do not believe that the article has in fact damaged it. Through a leaked video released earlier this month, Trump himself mentions the things he has done to women, so to claim that the article The Times published was what caused the damage seems unlikely to me. Trump has made public comments about women before - including his own daughter - that, in my opinion, lead the public's perception of him.
Yes, there was a defamatory statement, but is it false? Yes, Donald Trump was identified. Yes, the article was published. But, Trump must prove actual malice, as well as proof of damages. All elements of libel MUST be proven in order for Donald Trump to win.
Who knows, maybe someday down the road future Media Law students will learn about the Trump v. New York Times case.
Jairo D, Tuesday/Thursday, 11:00 a.m.
Kirby J. 11AM
If taken to trail, this case could go either way.
If we want to be technical, technically Trump would lose against New York Times because there is no real evidence of his reputation as a public figure being tarnished and all elments of libel really can not be proven.
However, if we want to be realistic, Trump is a public figure that has POWER.If he wanted to make something happen (like win this case v. New York Times) he will find ways, ethical or not, to win.
Bill M [T/TR 2-3:20]
I believe from the evidence given in the links you have provided; Donald Trumps case would end similarly the way Masson v. NY Magazine & NY Times v. Sullivan ended with both plaintiff's losing. Suing for libel per se involves defamation, identification and dissemination as well as level of fault and proof of damages. I do not believe the NY Times showed any level of fault because they took Trump's word for words as well as interviewed people that could be proved came in contact with Trump around the time they claimed. Trump has as big of a chance at winning a libel case as Barrack Obama becoming president for a third straight term. NY Times will prevail because even if they weren't 100% accurate on their quotes, Justice Breenan grants them breathing space in reporting controversial topics.
Without any hesitation I will say that The New York Times would win in this case.
The NYT did heir job in reporting what was said not only on the bus but what they believe are facts from private individuals. The individuals made themselves a source not inform the public about actions and allow them to form their own opinions on Donald Trump. It is not the work of the NYT but the actions of the candidate that causes them to loose an individual or group during this tough decision. With his enormous following i believe that Trump would have a very difficult time proving that the NYT has hurt his reputation
And i must add that the NYT had the best response to the request!
Lea D.
Online
I think that given the public figure status of Donald Trump and the leaked recordings that were released prior to this reporting, Donald Trump's campaign would have a hard time winning this case.
Proving actual malice would be incredibly hard for Trump's lawyers to do whenever Trump has consistently been on the record saying misogynistic and sexually debasing comments. Those comments are something any editor or fact-checker would find prior to publishing, and would therefor reasonably lead them to conclude that these actions aren't patently false or fabricated, and given his public figure status, these accounts of sexual assault are undoubtedly in the public interest.
Greg Arellano, 2pm class
First of all, I think that Trump went about this situation ALL WRONG. The New York Times did an investigation on Trump and published an article on how he relied on millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the past 40 years. Trump responded by tweeting out to his followers that his lawyers wanted to sue the New York Times for irresponsible intent. Trump went on to tweet that day attacking specific employees for The New York Times, calling them "wacky", "a neurotic dope" and even going on to encouraging them to fire some of the staff. Definitely childish to say the least. I do not think that this is a case that Trump will win. He will have to prove that they published something false knowing that it was false. I think he will have trouble stating that the article was false in the first place.
Cindy Le - ONLINE
Maria V. t/th 2-3:30 afternoon
I don't think that Trump will win if he does sue. I think that since he is a celebrity/public official he would have to prove actual malice. And actual malice is when someone publishes something that is false knowingly, and since there is proof of the things that he said, then you can't prove falsity in that sense. Also, if NYT were to loose it could cause a chilling effect and that would not do anybody any good.
Taylor Stewart TTh 11 am
If Trump can prove that each woman is blatantly lying in terms of their accusations, sure Trump could win. But how is he going to be able to do that? He is going to have to prove actual malice, a feat that seems too difficult for him to do at this point.
In the potential libel case of Donald Trump v. New York Times I believe Trump would lose. A libel case means that what has been disseminated is untrue. It must contain these elements: there must be defamation, identification and dissemination, and in Trump's case because he is a public figure actual malice.
I believe actual malice will be incredibly hard for Trump to prove. For actual malice to have occurred it would mean that the newspaper New York Times intentionally meant to write something completely false to harm his reputation.
New York Times interviewed numerous women who stated that Donald Trump sexually harassed them, and spent time on writing the article. However, even if people try to use the excuse that they felt it was "rushed" thankfully, Justice Brennan in the USSC said that news journalists have leeway/ breathing room with their articles, especially those of national importance with Trump running for presidency.
We learned in class that the truth is the best defense of all, that it carries weight in the courtroom. I genuinely hope that our justice system doesn't fail us today.
Kelly C. Tuesday/Thursday 2:00-3:20
In all honesty, I am trying to make this as unbiased as possible so it's kind of hard... but, from what I've interpreted from class discussions libel per se is when the words are defamatory themselves which they aren't in this case, Donald Trump was never called a rapist directly. Because Trump is a public figure and one of the most important to the public eye at the moment he should expect criticism. If the court ruled against NYT then they'd be forcing newspapers to steer clear of controversial topics such as Trump's inappropriate behavior with women. It is also true that Trump has made his reputation of being invasive with women very clear a long time ago so what NYT published really wasn't new to people and most importantly, it wasn't LIBEL. What NYT published was the truth and there is plenty of proof that goes beyond the tapes. I'd say New York Times would prevail in this case... I hope so.
Elianne C.
T-TH 2pm
I think that Trump would lose this case, because it would be very difficult for him to prove malice. If he could prove that the allegations weren't true he would have much better chance, but that would be very difficult if not impossible to prove. He is a very important public figure and should know that any conversation that he has, private or not, is very likely to get to the public eye. The NYT didn't publish anything that was knowingly untrue.
Shaeleigh S t/th 2pm
I believe that if Trump can somehow prove actual malice, he could win. We can't be entirely sure whether the accusations made by these females are true or not, but Trump has somewhat dug himself into a hole that he may not be able to escape from, most likely making it very difficult from him to prevail. His public standing is very important, so everything that he speaks about is being interpreted by most of the public in different ways, which some bring interpretations of strong bias. Overall, because of trumps prominence and public status, it's going to be extremely difficult for him to do so, therefor, I do think that NYT will win the case.
^^^Gabe Timmons Tuesday-Thursday 11am-12:20
If this case were in fact to go to trial, I believe that Trump would win the trial. Throughout this entire election, there has been much speculation about shady activity involving both candidates. With that being said, I find it rather suspicious that these women only came forward now about their alleged sexual assaults. It looks rather convenient for them and the Democratic party that these allegations were suddenly brought forth with the release of the video of Trump and Bush's conversation. It was after much thought and review of the details, that I came to that conclusion myself. Seeing as the alleged sexual assaults did not happen recently, there would really be no way to prove whether the accusations are based in fact, so that may cause some difficulty for Trump. However, I still believe that regardless of what The New York Times did or says in a potential trial, I believe that Trump would win.
Alexandra T. T/Th 2-3:20
I agree with some people on here that Trump could potentially win if he could prove actual malice. But, it would be very hard to prove this because that would mean that the newspapers intentionally did this to harm his reputation. Being a major public figure like Donald Trump things like this pop up in the media all the time. IF he can prove that what these ladies are saying is false, then he is in good hands. Sadly, there have been many women come forward and not much proof that they are lying. With the elections coming up fast who knows what will pop up in the next few days.
Sarah Pearce T/TR 11:00-12:20
I believe that NY Times would win this case if it were to go to trial. Although I think that there is a strong chance that these women have been paid off or are lying outright, it would be incredibly difficult for Donald Trump to prove actual malice. It would be tough for Trump to say that his reputation took a direct hit by this article. We have seen that is it incredibly difficult for a plaintiff to win a libel case, and I think that this would again be the case in this case as well. However, I don't see this actually going trial because Trump is very preoccupied at the moment.
Trevor Sartin afternoon class
The New York times would most likely win in this case if taken to a civil court. Even though Donald Trump is a pretty dominant figure and would be able to afford a great lawyer, he wouldn't be able to convince that he isn't guilty of the crime. He wouldn't be able to prove every single element of libel and since he is the plaintiff, a ruling of guilty would most likely be the resting case. All in all, everything he's been in the news for recently I don't think he would even have the time to take this to a court to get squared out.
first of all Donald Trump has been a public figure for quite some time already and should expect criticism as it comes with being in the public eye. I don't think that he will win if he proceeds with the libel suit. He must prove actual malice on regards of what these women have said. Which looking at past cases is very difficult to be successful. There is proof of the "false" statements that Donald Trump is claiming to be untrue, therefore it's difficult to say that actual malice could be met. He has been consistently on record saying such type of speech. These accounts of sexual assault are clearly not made up and are a public interest concern especially in deciding if he should be the individual to take power of the highest office in this country.
Javier Melendez, 2 P.M. class
It seems clear to me that Donald Trump has no chance of winning these libel lawsuits. After all, The New York Times hasn't been publishing saying that he did these things, they've been publishing that these women are telling them Donald Trump touched them inappropriately. Therefore, there is no way that this newspaper can be lying. They're not making anything up, they're simply publishing the information that is being told to them.
If this case makes it to court, the main reason Trump wouldn't win can be summed up by saying, as we often say in class, "because Sullivan". If public figures could sue media outlets every time they published information about them that they don't like, this would cause a chilling effect. There must be some sort of leniency for news outlets or no breaking news would ever be published.
Lillian Bushong, 11 a.m. class
Sarah R.
11 am class
First off, working at a magazine, I know that The New York Times must have tons of fact checkers to check every article they post. So with that being said, I think that The New York Times would prevail over Mr. Trump. Donald Trump has always been a public figure and always had a terrible reputation, so he would have to prove actual malice in this libel case. There are multiple recordings of Trump boasting about his ways with women that there would be no way he could prove that this harmed his reputation. The New York Times was simply telling a newsworthy story that is in the publics interests and one that needed to be told.
I believe that NYT would win this case if taken to trial. I don't think Trump can prove all elements of trial. I also think, just like the NYT's response letter said, his reputation was already ruined by comments and actions from Trump himself. The article was definitely of public concern. I believe that the only chance for Trump to win this case would be if he can prove that these stories are fake which would be a tough situation. And on top of everything, Trump is also a public figure. I don't this he would win this.
Vianney Strick
TTH 11-12:20
I believe the New York Times would probably win this case if it were taken to court, I think Trump is a very dominant figure right now and would be able to get in contact with a superb lawyer. It would be difficult in this situation for Trump to prove actual malice. Regardless of that I believe that at this time Donald doesn't have the time to really take this to court considering the timing of things and the election being so close. I also think that maybe the women could have been paid off to claim the things they did because of the timing and to mess with Trumps reputation, although he already has quite the reputation.
Emmanuel Ruan
T/TH 2pm
With all being said about Donald Trump, his reputation is not in a position to be ruined. The tapes, recordings, and interviews of his actions are truthful representations of his own words. They are truthful and are not being altered to change the meaning of his quotes. Therefore, I believe that Donald Trump would lose the case to New York Times based on the truthfulness of the quotes. He would not be able to prove all the elements of trial. Trump could have an argument of malice or ruining of his personal reputation but nothing that could be proven.
Samuel Ramirez
T/TH 2pm
I believe that the New York Times would win this case, rather than Trump. The New York Times is such a prevalent news source, who is smart enough to seriously cover their tracks and make sure they have all the correct info before publishing such information in their paper. Secondly I don't think Trump has much basis for his lawsuit, due to the fact that he is a public figure.
Victoria B. Online Class.
Alexis D., Online
If this case went to trial, I believe the New York Times would win. Trump has absolutely no proof that what was said in the article is false, and based on Trump's own words, the Times has no reason not to believe these women. Even if the claims are false (which I highly doubt), Trump has no proof that the Times published them knowing that. Also, given Trump's own casual remarks on how easy it is for him to assault women, the Times article probably didn't tarnish his reputation enough to do any real damage. Trump did that on his own.
I believe that the New York Times would win this case if it does make it to trial. Trump has an argument that there is identification and dissemination. However, when we speak of actual malice and defamation he does not have much of a case because he already has a bad reputation. He could argue that the conversation between Trump and Bush was private but the negative comments towards women were still said regardless. Because the comments were released, they are now in the public eye to be interpreted by everyone and the bottom line is he shouldn't have said those things in the first place if he cared about his reputation. Trumps claim is invalid until the sexual assault cases are investigated.
Erinn Jaet
2pm
I believe this election has brought to light many issues with our Mainstream Media. The United States of America has a higher percieved corruption through government and media than Germany and at least fifteen other first world countries. It is my personal belief that certain elites in the media world, and goverment sectors work together to keep non-establishment candidates down, and promote practical royal families such as the Bush's and Clinton's. However personal opinions aside, if Trump pursued this lawsuit I don't believe he would win. It is on the plaintiff to prove falsity which is near impossible on issues that happened over a decade ago with indiviuals you have no close connection to.
Jesse D
2:00pm Tuesday/Thursday
Logan M, 11:00 T/th
Donald Trump loves lawsuits, this is obvious. According to USA Today, Trump has been involved in over 3,500 lawsuits to date. So taking this fact into consideration, I am not surprised in the least that he is planning on taking this current predicament with the NYT to court as well.
Now, with this case specifically, if you were asking me if Donald Trump has a chance to win, I would answer hell no. If I was a lawyer I would say that there is a high probability that Trump could not prove libel. Donald Trump defines public figure, and to think he could prove actual malice in this case specifically would be a considerable stretch. He would have to prove not only that all 10+ women were lying to prove falsity, which doesn't seem realistic.
On the other hand, I do understand why Donald Trump is trying to take this to court. If he didn't, he would basically be admitting that these women were telling the truth. So I believe it is more of a public relations move, or a move to save face with his supporters or those on the fence. I don't think he believes he will actually win, because it's pretty obvious he wouldnt.
Logan McCullough
Donald Trump and his lawyer do not not seem to have a proper understanding of defamation laws in this country, nor do they seem to realize how hard it is to sue for libel, especially with Trump being a public figure. Trump's lawyers specifically said they were suing for libel per se in his letter to The New York Times, which means they are claiming the story is both false and defamatory. This adds a whole other hurtle, as Trump would now have to also prove actual damages in addition to the papers careless disregard for the facts of the story. I think it would be almost impossible for Trump to win a libel lawsuit against the paper because I don’t think it would be possible for Trump to actually demonstrate that they believed the story was made-up and still printed it. I think the New York Times has handled the entire situation very well and that their letter was a perfect response.
Trump needs to understand that the role of a free and independent press is an extremely important one. It helps bring exposure to important issues for members of the public, thereby enlightening citizens so they can make educated choices. It also helps make sure individuals running for elected positions answer for the things they say. He can’t restrict the press just because he doesn't like what’s being said.
Mariah Simank- Online Class
I think without a doubt the New York Times would win this case. Donald Trump is a public figure, meaning he must prove actual malice. It is very difficult to prove the New York Times intentionally published the article to harm Trump. Is the information damaging to his reputation? Yes, most definitely. However, it's very difficult to prove that it is false. In Sullivan v. New York Times, the court ruled in favor of the NYT. Brennan's response could be applied to a Trump v. NYT case. Allowing a public figure to win a lawsuit against the media because he was offended is taking a step too far. It would create censorship of the media, causing them to be wary of what they publish. Even if what the women are saying is false, I still think it would fall under the "Breathing space" idea Brennan had. Trump, being a public figure, is going to have a difficult time winning the lawsuit.
Kayla J.
Afternoon (2pm)
Although the three elements of libel are definitely present, I do not think Trump would win this libel case. We discussed during the Times V. Sullivan case that public officials or figures voluntarily move in a public arena and should expect criticism. So, I am not at all surprised that after the recording was leaked that publications are doing what they can to highlight this controversy, especially in the midst of this "unique" presidential election. In order for Trump to win, he would have to prove actual malice and that the statements made by these women were false. The New York Times is a well-known, very credible publication so I highly doubt they would make this story up or encourage these women to blatantly lie. This is also not the first time women have come forward about Trump's behavior toward women, even before the recording.
Nicole Vaguine, 2 pm.
I do not think Donald Trump would win the lawsuit against the New York Times. If Trump were to win, he would have to prove actual malice from the New York Times and prove that ALL of the women who have come forward were lying. It would be very hard to do this. Not only that, but Donald Trump is a public figure, and therefore is in the public eye and should expect criticism, especially since he is running for president.
Taylor C. 11:00-12:20
I believe that if this case went to trial that The New York Times would win. The precedent for this case is The New York Times v. Sullivan Case, this precedent is that Donald Trump would have to prove actual malice which is incredibly difficult. This case would also be a perfect example of the chilling effect. If the New York Times was hindered from reporting newsworthy information it would cause publications to begin censoring themselves from reporting important information.
Lauren E. (TR afternoon class)
I believe that New York Times was just doing their duty of being a watchdog for the community by sharing important information on a subject that is deeply concerned by the public.
Pablo O. (Online)
The New York Times was doing it's duty to the public as a newspaper to publish relative, news-worthy information that directly relates to current events although the claimed incidents took place in the past.
Also, the letter in response to Mr. Trump's attorney points out that no further damage was done to Trump's reputation that he himself didn't already do through his words and actions.
These reasons are the basis of why the New York Times would win this case if they were to defend themselves against "The Donald."
I had seen the letter from Trump's side and the allegations by women but I had never seen the letter written back to Trump from the New York Times, and it's hilarious. They are witty and while also being smart and protecting their First Amendment right. If this ever went to trial (which I don't see happening) I think the New York Times would win. First of all like we have been talking about in class, the court ruling in Trumps favor could very easily cause the chilling effect, making publications scared to write about certain things. And second, the New York Times makes a great point in their letter when they say that they aren't saying anything that people don't already know about, they are just furthering the discussion. They also mention how they are being unbiased by reporting on both candidates. If this case went to the Supreme Court, I am confident that the New York Times would win.
Taylor S. 11:00am Class
Madeline B. T/R 2PM
I would like to say that I am not surprised that women are coming forward at this time with allegations about Trump, but I'm not. It seems like some scandal always appears around election time.
But if this did go to trial then I highly doubt Trump would win. Considering that Trump is a public figure, it would be hard to prove that this is harming his reputation, and it would be difficult for him to prove actual malice. Therefore, I think that New York Times would win if this actually went to trial.
If this case went to trial, I believe trump would lose. After the leaking of the video, it will be really hard to prove the women that have come forward are lying, even though I believe they are. Proving actual malice almost seems impossible in this case. These accusations probably aren't harming his reputation either, he did that on his own. It would be a waste of time for him to sue the NYT. Also, if Trump were to win, it could lead to a chilling effect, which would not be good for the future of publications.
Emily B. T/TH 11-12:20
If you want to look at the actual laws on the books about libel, the outcome doesn't look like it would come out in Trump's favor. A lot of articles about this have pointed out that a libel case would end up turning into Trump's own sexual assault trial. There are so many woman who would be able to testify against him. However, looking at Trump's track record with lawsuits, he has won a lot of cases that he shouldn't have because he can afford the best lawyers. The article in question isn't flat out accusing Trump of being a sexual predator, it is simply about women who have accused him of sexual assault which is newsworthy.
Amanda Pulte Online
Personally any Donald Trump talk just absolutely disgusts me. If this suit were to come to light I feel like it would ruin Donald Trump. First two women come forward accusing him him of sexual assault then two more women come forward saying he sexually harassed them. This wouldn't go well for him whatsoever.
If this issue makes it to court, I do not think that Trump would win. As we have discussed in class, the plaintiff has to prove a lot in order to win the case. It is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a libel case. Even though the basic elements of libel are present, I believe that Trump and his team would have a hard time proving all of the elements. Also, the fact that the suit would be against the press also has an influence on the case. To rule against the press could have change what the press decides to publish.
Brooke C.
11 a.m.
After reading many cases in this class as well as reading the articles provided about Trump wanting to sue the New York Times for their articles released about him, I do not think that Donald Trump has any chance of winning a libel case. For him to actually win the case, all of the accusations against him would have to be proven false and with all the women who have came out and told the media about Trump sexually harassing them, I really do not think he would have the slightest chance of winning. Also Donald Trump is a public figure and the people need to know all the facts before they go and vote, so for the New York Times to release articles about him, they are not at fault because they are doing a justice to the nation so that way people know all the facts before they vote.
Maha R. (MC 4301 online class)
In my opinion i believe trump would lose this case if he chose to file the lawsuit. The N.Y times didn't have any intention to destroy his name, they're just doing there job. They got a huge story and ran with it, seeing as how there is physical evidence of him saying "He can do whatever he wants to women because he is a celebrity", I believe the judge would not be in favor of trump.
Donald Trump can't win this case. He is a public figure in which case would have to prove actual malice. It also seems that these allegations have been proven to be true according to the women interviewed. Seems like it would be hard for Trump to prove his case in this one. As in Sullivan, it would also go against the NYT being able to publish controversial topics. Trump is a public figure, he shouldn't expect anything less. He's going to be criticized.
Meagan Kerr
T/TH 11 am
If we review everything we've been talking about in class it seems as though the outcome will not be in Donald Trump's favor. The allegations have been proven with evidence in the leaked video as well as multiple women coming forward. The questions is always going to be, "are they lying" but with multiple accusations, it'll be hard for Trump to win this potential case.
That being said, Trump needed to take this to court because if he didn't then he'd basically be admitting guilt to these accusations. Trump isn't afraid of a lawsuit, he's been in hundreds without blinking. Since Trump is a public figure with such gravity at the moment, it would be hard for him to prove actual malice from the article.
I do not believe that the case would go well for Donal Trump
Andrew Flieller
T/TH 11:00am
It seems obvious that The New York Times would prevail if Trump v. The New York Times went to trial. There is little to no chance that Trump would be able to prove actual malice. Trump has long been a public figure, so frankly I’m surprised that his lawyers found it appropriate to attempt a retraction request.
Melanie Chalupa
TR 11a
Just based on what we've seen in the Libel cases we have studied, specifically in terms of what a plaintiff needs to prove in order to win, then it seems like someone who has been a voluntary public figure for his entire life is facing an uphill battle. Not to mention the cards stacked against him already in terms of proving the harm done to his reputation done by this specific article - as the letter from the NYT legal counsel explained, it seems like any harm done at this point is his own fault.
That said, neither party is wrong in taking the course of action that they have. It's smart for the Trump team to play the defensive here and deny any claims outright - While the NYT, any supposed political agenda aside, are covering a timely and relevant issue of compelling public and political interest. From the pov of the women who have come forward, it has been said time and again that victims of sexual assault feel the chilling effect of an indifferent culture that, as Ms. Leeds said in the first article, has dismissed this type of behavior as insignificant, not a crime, and has even turned the blame on the victims. With that in mind, its no wonder that they never said anything until now, because at any other time in the last 30 years, they would have been shut down and mowed over by the suing power that any individual or organization with that much capital could muster. Obviously though, not everyone is going to look at it what way, which is why - if im being indifferent here - i have to say that its a smart move for the trump legal counsel to call this a politicized move in the way that they did. However, the ultimate advantage will go to the NYT, because... well, Sullivan.
I do not believe that Trump has a chance to win a libel suit against the New York Times. The New York times is reporting interviews they had with women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Trump. The New York Times doesn't claim any bias in this case, they're only reporting what these women claim to be facts. Also, Donald Trump is the definition of a public figure. It's going to be very hard for him to prove actual malice. As a presidential candidate, it's important for the public to criticize him. Criticism is an important part of our political system, because it's necessary to recognize the imperfections of the people who lead our country.
Past libel cases have set the precedent for public figures. It's a fair assumption that Donald Trump v. NY Times would go the same way. Donald Trump would have to prove actual malice, which will be incredibly difficult. Also, there is the issue of proving whether or not these statements are false. He is on tape describing himself performing the exact actions that the women described in their interviews.
Amanda Flinn
T/Th 11:00am
If taken to trial, let us examine the following:
Five elements of libel Mr. Trump would have to prove:
Defamatory statement that is false. Um? He has a record of bragging about his inappropriate relations with women. An investigation-- if he wishes-- could be conducted to prove or disprove the validity of the women’s accounts.
Identifies its intended victim. Most boldly.
Dissemination. Yes, nationally.
Proof of damage to reputation. Good luck to Mr. Trump. As McGraw puts it, “Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation of Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”
Actual malice or negligence-- NYT claims to have done diligent work to confirm the women’s accounts, and more women are coming forward with allegations.
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump seems to only be able, at this time with the given information, to prove 2 of 5 elements needed to successfully sue for libel.
New York Time’s defenses to libel:
Fair comment and criticism-- Mr. Trump is a public figure-- and truth as a defense in the event that a full investigation proved the accusations true.
I believe if Trump took this case to trial, he would not only lose but potentially provide concrete evidence to the accusations of him inappropriately touching women.
Breonna R., 2PM
Bobby KH- TTh Afternoon (2p.m.)
I believe that if this issue went to trial, New York Times would prevail. Given the circumstances, the interpretation of this law is recognized to be nullified when a "public figure" is the alleged victim. Being a presidential candidate, you must be prepared for the harsh and good things people may say about you. If Trump was to win this case, it would imply that those with power have the ability to censor or prohibit speech that may not be in their favor. Based on Trump's past, even his status pre-presidential nomination, I believe it would be extremely difficult for him to win this case. I also believe if the allegations weren't true about him, he should be able to understand why these things would be alleged. His reputation, in general, isn't the best. All in all, I believe we all have our skeletons and we all do our best to hide them. As a presidential nominee, especially GOP nomination, you should be transparent in you wrongdoings et cetera. I also believe that this is one of the most monumental presidencies in my life time mainly because of the open seat on the USSC. Also, in the next few years justices may be up for retirement or lay their gavel due to old age. Nevertheless, the winner of this election could potentially shape the USSC for a long time.
I don't think Donald Trump would have a leg to stand on in court in regards to a libel lawsuit against the New York Times. The audio recordings of Trump preceding these allegations already added fuel to the fire. The New York Times are ultimately protected by fair comment and criticism as Trump has already solidified his unfiltered reputation in various forms of media.
Kevin Ford
(Online)
Sean G (Online)
I cannot help but side with The New York Times in this situation involving two women coming forward about being assaulted by Donald Trump. I do not, however, agree with the women's timing of their statements. BUT I also don't agree with how Trump speaks and possibly acts towards women. He simply has no case. Trump has thrust himself to becoming a public figure, and now political, for many years. This is simply newsworthy from arguably the most credible news source we have in this country. Trump taking this to trial would be a waste of time and money. He first must go to court for his apparent actions towards these women before he will this libel case.
Anne Odiboh T/R 2 P.M.
In this case, I don't think that Trump will be able to prevail in a libel lawsuit. The New York Times is not trying tarnish Trump's reputation, they are merely providing evidence to the allegations. And since Trump is a public figure, it is hard for him to avoid public criticism and scrutiny, especially now that he is a presidential candidate.
Also, NYT is protected by fair comment and criticism, so they didn't really do anything wrong.
The fact that Trump is even running is astounding and add on top of that all the things that are coming out about him- this man clearly is ill suited. When it came to the women coming forward about Trump I do think that they waited way too late too come forward and they did come forward at a suspicious time. However if Trump is setting himself up with his own derogatory remarks about women then how can he claim defamation of character? He defamed himself already. As for the article being libelous, I dont believe those women were lying and Trump really has no grounds to sue the Times for telling the truth. I think his people are trying to scare the Times into a retraction and if it went to court Trump wouldnt win because of Freedom of the Press and the fact that the paper was only supporting what he'd already said about himself.=Kristen Caudillo, MC4301 Online
Personally, I think if this trial between Trump and NY Times went to court that NY Times would definitely prevail. I see the qualities of libel Trump COULD sue for, but with all that's been going on with him there's a good chance it might be true. The NY Times response to him was golden when they said his reputation is already damaged and a reflection of all HIS actions. He can't really be mad about something that HE did, especially if true, and he's probably only mad because he wanted to keep it behind closed doors and now everything is coming to light. I feel like we don't know if Trump truly inappropriately touched all these women coming forward; however, we do not know that either, and in regards to some of the things that HAVE been true about Trump in the media, it wouldn't be such a surprise if all these allegations were true. It's sort of like how Mr. Martinez referred to the SNL skits of Trump as "writing themselves," his actions and statements act as the NY Times defense. I don't necessarily think the NY Times posted with intent to harm his reputation, but simply just reporting on what's going on with Trump- it's his fault. Interesting enough despite the intent to harm his reputation or not, I do see it happening regardless especially on social media as a lot of people have claimed they will no longer vote for Trump after all the surfacing of these stories. In conclusion though, I'm siding with the NY Times on this one.
David Baugh, T/TH 2:00-3:20
If this issue were to make it to court, I do not think that Trump would win. The plaintiff has to prove a lot in order to win a libel case, and it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win. The New York Times was not trying to ruin Trump's reputation, they were merely providing evidence to already existing allegations. I believe if this case were to make it to court that Trump would have a hard time proving all the elements of libel.
Tyler Williamson (online)
Donald Trump has been involved in a lot of law suits and in most of the cases he did not come out on top. Well this case will not be any different. If this case were to go to the courts, Trump will not win this libel case. Donald Trump can disagree with the New York Times all he wants, but the New York Times is reporting the facts that have already been reported. Donald Trump will have a hard to win this case.
Since Donald Trump is now a major public figure he has no defense against what the NY Times reported if he took them to court for libel. For starters, he has already given statements that prove his misogynistic character so in my opinion he would not win over a jury's or judge's decision. Also the women who came forward have a 1st amendment right to tell their side of the story and not be silenced. The New York Times was just doing their job reporting what the women’s personal accounts were. I don’t think Trump would win this case if he sued the NY Times for Libel, and I believe the NY Times lawyer did a great job relaying that message.
- Jarett S 2pm
Maria Martinez- T-Th 11:00-12:20
First of all, I am impressed of how well written the letter The New York Times sent back to Donald's attorney letter is; it attacked everything they argued. I am pretty sure, that if Mr. Trump decided to sue the newspaper, he would not win the case. Like David E. McCraw said, what The NYT published didn't harm Donald's reputation. When someone sues for libel it is because his/her reputation is something of value and it was harmed. But in this case, the plaintiff had already "damaged" his reputation himself. Mr. Trump had already made comments about his inappropriate behavior with women in videos like the Billy Bush's interview. One of the elements of libel is that the defamatory statement is false, and in this case in particular, it might be a little hard prove otherwise. Also when Donald Trump's attorney asked the newspaper about "cease any further publication" it took me back to New York Times v United States. What we learned in this case, is that prior restraints may be constitutional if it proved threat to national security. However, in this case, what The NYT published was a matter of public concern. Mr. Trump could be our next president so it is the right of the newspaper to inform Americans about what this man is capable of doing. Like we learned in Sullivan's case, general public would be the only one loosing if major newspapers would steer clear of controversial topics. Mr. Trump is a public official, so he knew he was going to be criticized.
I believe if Trump were to take this to trial, he would lose. As stated in class, it's hard for a plaintiff to prove all aspects of libel. The NYT brought up multiple great points in their letter back to Trump's lawyer saying that he has done most of the damage himself in the way he speaks and all that he's admitted to. These women coming out and stating this wasn't news to everyone because everyone already knew how Trump behaved. The fact that these statements could be true definitely works in NYT favor and Trump would have a hard time winning a court case such as this one.
-Brandon S Afternoon
In the case of Trump v. The New York Times I think that the New York Times would win. Although they really cannot prove anything that he is done and it is a bit ridiculous and suspicious that these women only come forth after this scandal was brought up, history has a pattern of ruling with the newspapers. I believe this is especially true during such an important, publicized election. It is the newspapers jobs to report the breaking news going on with the candidates (even if it is favored toward Clinton) and because of that I think the New York Times would have a good argument for winning this imaginary lawsuit.
Megan H. 2p.m.
I loved the response that Mr. McGraw gave to Trump's lawyer. That's the first step to being lawered.
While I am completely sided against what Donald Trump said in the 2005 recording, I found it a little strange that the women would wait so long to speak against Donald Trump. That is until I realized, by trying to myself in their shoes, how intimidating it must be to try and go against such a polarizing figure like Donald Trump. I also realized that this could not have come at a better time. There is a chance that if women were to have brought this to the media's attention back in 2005, the issue would have simmered down by 2016. Voters may be able to look past that issue and say that it was a long time ago and he's changed. I mean c'mon... some people are still going to vote for him even if the video is new, let alone old. But since the video and women who have been inappropriately touched by Trump have stood up to talk, it has shed a brighter light on Trump as a person and magnifies his inability to be the next leader of the United States.
If this became a legal case, Trump would not win because the New York Times has the best defense on their side and that's truth. Trump has already acknowledged that the voice in the recording is his. Like Mr. McGraw said, they are only restating what Trump has already stated. The interviews by the women can't stain a reputation that is already stained. Trump would also have to prove actual malice because he is a public figure. That would seem difficult to do because of the history with actual malice.
All in all, a great read. We'll see how election day goes.
Gustavo Torres, Tuesday 11 am.
I don't believe Donald Trump can win this case. Based on the women interviewed after the recording of what he said it seems to be true. The New York times is protected by fair comment and they are just providing information by other women. Trump being a public figure it is hard to avoid scrutiny and criticism. He is going to have to prove actual malice by somehow having evidence that what the New York Times wrote was not true.
Danielle C
TR 2pm
Much like what Gustavo said, I also found it very strange that the women would wait so long to speak out against Donald Trump. He has always been a public figure so you think something would have been said a long time ago. If this became a legal case I do not think that Donal Trump would win. The New York times has a recording that trump has confessed is his voice. There is no solid proof that the women's interviews are hurting his reputation when people continue to vote/support him. Also with trump being a Public Figure some criticism is to be expected and also accepted. It is hard enough for someone to prove libel, especially when that person is running to be the next United States President.
Trump is not going to win in a lawsuit against the New York Times. Actual malice cannot be proven. He's a contender for the presidency, and still has people who support him no matter what comes out of his mouth. I've also been thinking about how accurate the reporting must have been done on this story. I see there are two reporters who are in the by-line. If the women were misquoted or misinterpreted in any way, you'd think that they would step up and say something. Proving that a sexual assault years ago didn't happen unless someone steps forward as a witness. The letter from Trump's lawyer came on Oct 12th and it's almost a month later. This isn't helping his case at all.
Meagan S T/TH 11am
If this ever did go to trial, which i doubt, i think the New York Times would prevail in such a case. Trumps chances would be slim to none considering how hard it would be for his attorney to prove a damage to Trump's already mangled reputation. Also Trump is a public figure which means they would also have to prove actual malice, which would be unlikely because of Trumps latest lewd leaks.
Joshua K T/TH 11AM
I believe that Trump would lose this "case" should it go to trial because he is a public figure which makes the case harder to win for the plaintiff since they have to prove actual malice or intentional damage to one's reputations. Trump does not have the "cleanest" record, if you will, and has himself to thank because he is pretty much self-destructive. I agree with the NYT stating that their article did not alter his reputation from what it already was.
Trump's lawyer accused the NYT for reckless reporting but it is clear there are many, creditable sources for the story.
Aly Crowley
TR 2:00-3:20
Donald Trump is public figure and although he was well-known before he ran for president, he has now pushed himself further into the public eye. When someone has put themselves in the public it is harder for them to win libel suits. Since the election is so close and prominent in the news, the media is covering everything they can about both candidates including things that may hurt their reputation. To prove defamation Donald Trump must prove the accusations about him are false, the allegations were published by a third party,the publisher acted negligently and he must prove damages. I think he could prove damages, however everything else is in favor of New York Times, so Trump does not have a good chance of winning the case.
Kalyn Fuller
Online
Megan H. (TR afternoon class)
I don't think Trump would win because he can't prove all the elements of libel. He is a public figure so the standard is set higher.
I think that if this case was to go to trial Trump would definitely lose. First he is a public figure, therefore he is susceptible to public scrutiny. On top of that the dissemination of the "fallacy" Donald Trump is claiming came primarily from his own comments about women. I think it would be an uphill battle for Trump's team to prove that additional harm was done to Trump's reputation since these claims only reciprocate the ideals Trump has been promoting throughout his campaign. I also think it would be important to note that the New York Times hints at their civic responsibility to let these victims stories be heard especially if their reporters vetted the stories the way the claim they did. If the NY times were to lose this case it would have a chilling affect on media outlets from reporting stories for victims of sexual assault.
Brianna E. Morning Class
I think if this this case went to trial, Trump would end up loosing. Because he is a public figure, it is harder to sue for libel as we discussed in class. Throughout this entire election, Trump has been accused for these kinds of behaviors and his reputation has been broken apart. This is all part of the election process and both candidates trying to compete but at this point I don't think there would be anything he could do to rebuild the reputation or change the beliefs that some have of him. I definitely think that trump could prove damages and and that libel is occurring here, but like I said earlier, because he is a public figure and the level of competition in this year election is so high I don't think there would be any chance of him winning.
Brooke Shoemaker
T/TH 2-3:20
Autumn B. 2 p.m. class
I don't see this potential libel lawsuit going anywhere because not all the elements of libel are there. Considering Donald Trump is a public figure and was when these accounts happened the criticism should have been expected. Due to the fact that he is a public person he needs to prove actual malice which can't be proved.
In the Sullivan case, Brennan lists three reasons in support of the First Amendment applied to papers, two of which would apply to this "case." If the Sullivan won the case then it would create a new form of government censorship by way of civil libel lawsuits allowing public officials to sue if they are hurt by criticism. Also, major newspapers would steer clear of controversial topics and result in a chilling effect and self-censorship.
The response from the New York Times is priceless though. The reporters did work to get both sides of the story and "diligently worked" to confirm the accounts brought up in the story which rules the fault of actual malice out.
I do believe that if it were just to the facts, NYT would win a libel case because of the freedom of the press. It wasn't a means of defamation - they were just stating the facts of the accusation, they never confirmed that what he did was actually true (yet). The press is doing their job of remaining as a check to the government.
Despite all of this, I could see why Trump would win because like these women said, he has that power and the money to buy any resources he needs to win this case. If I were the women I initially too would see no point in bringing the assault to trial because it would be a large investment that has a high chance of loosing just because he can pay for a notable lawyer.
I think it would be very hard for Trump to win this libel case due to the fact that he is a public figure. He would have to prove the three elements of libel: defamation, identification and dissemination, plus he would have to prove actual malice since he is a public figure. Even if Trump could prove a few elements of libel, I don't think it would be possible for him to prove all three and especially not actual malice. When it comes to NY Times, they have every right to publish facts from these women's claims. They were only doing what a news organization is supposed to do, and that's report the news. I really loved how the NY Times responded to Trump's lawyer's accusations. They pretty much stated all of the facts of the case, blatantly called out Trump for his actions and challenged Trump's lawyer to take them to court. I don't believe that Trump could fight these allegations especially since he is running for President and is subject to extreme scrutiny since he is in the nation's spotlight as he runs for presidency.
Michela Johnson
TTH 2pm
Hell no. Trump wouldn't prevail simply because of NYT v Sullivan. NYT acted out of the public interest. I mean, it's like you said, this guy ran and now won the highest office in the country. He might as well take that off of his list of things to do. He can't rewrite the constitution. This mess is exactly why actual malice is in place; to protect the press. We need the press to fulfill their watchdog duty.
Now that he's going to be president though, who knows what the future holds for the press? Let's just hope the Supreme Court does its job correctly.
Brach Foster TTH 2PM
Personally, I think if Trump took this case to trial, he would certainly come out on top. Regarding to all of the cases pertaining to libel that we've studied and gone over these last few weeks... there always seems to be some kind of loophole for public figures to defend themselves against libel. NYT definitely acted towards the public interest because a person with as much power that Trump holds should be held accountable for the things he says. Trump has quite a bit of funds so this taking him to court wouldn't even really phase him, as he's stated before he loves messing with the media and causing robust debate such as this. Now, that Donald J. Trump is president, there sure is a lot of questions about how the media will cover Trump. All we can hope is for the USSC to act its part.
Trump might prevail in this case after all that has just occurred. I mean his status is basically almost as high as it gets. He has the funds to get whatever he wants at this point. His lawyers could probably make anyone get out on top. I just find it had for him to not be able to win this somehow. I know he would have to prove actual malice but I'm sure something could be twisted up some how.
-Raquel K. Afternoon
Ruthann M
online class
I am so disgusted by the way Trump treats women. So many women are sexually assaulted and don't ever come forward, so the fact that these women did not come forward right away (I think Trump's lawyer said it took one women 11 years) should not be an issue. In my opinion Trump and his lawyer should keep their mouths shut about stuff they don't know about. Until they are a women who gets sexually assaulted they don't get to have their ugly bias opinions. Trump would not win in a libel lawsuit for all the reasons the New York Times stated in their reply. If he was going to sue he would have already, but the thing of it is he knows what he did. It is even more disgusting to me that Trump has daughters and still finds it ok to treat women with this regard. I wish he would try to do something regarding this so that all the women he has ever sexually assaulted would come forward and put his ass in jail. However he probably won't because he knows the truth will come through and people will see him for the sexual assaulting jerk that he is.
Stephanie Williams
TTH/2:00
Now that Trump is the President-Elect it seems that what he does he has an excuse for, and I fear others will follow suit. Now that we have a pervert for commander in chief and who is very open about his perversions others will assume that that gives them a free pass to treat women however they want & to gloat about it publicly.
In the case of a libel suit against the NYT it would be very difficult for Trump's team to prove libel on all five points. I enjoyed the tone of McCraw response to Kasowitz, basically daring Trump to file a lawsuit. McCraw's rebuttal is very on point stating that Trump can't prove defamation when the stories of these two women coincide with his own admission of harassment that he played down as "locker room banter." The reputation that Trump has is the one he has given to himself, and any stains on his reputations are ones he put there. The NYT article merely serves as conformation for the transparency of his own character.
Trump is a public figure and has chosen to be such. With this comes public scrutiny, it's part of the environment. If he's going to get his feelings hurt eveytime he is criticized then he is in the wrong position. Unfortunately, part of holding a political office, especially the presidency, is to be disliked.
L. Roach-online
I do not believe, if this case went to trial, that Trump could possibly win his case. The Times is printing what witnesses are saying. There is not too much that could be done for him at that point. There is a very slim chance that his team could possibly prove libel. He is a public figure, and as we know about that then that puts him front and center for scrutiny.
Hannah Bennett
Tues/Thurs 2 p.m.
Unfortunately, now that Trump is President-Elect, I wouldn’t doubt his ability to continue his self-proclaimed theme of getting away with whatever he wants, in this case winning the lawsuit. Although, if the same actions were done by someone else, the person responsible would definitely not win the lawsuit because of the trouble in proving ALL five points of libel. Because of the brave women who have stepped forward to reveal the truth in the actions taken by our future President, Trump is unable to prove defamation. His claim to “locker room banter” is discredited after the release of their testimonies and continuously confirmed by the collective of other inappropriate instances he’s been caught red-handed in.
It’s deeply upsetting to me to know that my President-Elect has participated in the single-most terrifying act of assault possible. It’s upsetting to know that even the President of the United States can get away with rape, as if it’s not bad enough that it happens all over the country without consequence every day.
I don’t think Trump SHOULD win in this lawsuit. If things played by the books, he wouldn’t. However with the way things are looking right now, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised.
I think this trial would have no legs. Whenever Trump's lawyer sent the letter he seemed to have no real evidence to back up or support his claim if the case were to be brought to court. He just sounded like a bully with empty threats. The New York Times has every right to publish a story that has evidence and that does not, as the New York Times said in their latter, include anything that Trump has not openly said or bragged about publicly anyways. Donald Trump prior to all of these stories, has repeatedly found himself putting his foot in his mouth because of all the backlash that comes with many of his comments. All-in-all Trump would never be able to take the New York Times, along with many other news outlets to court, because he has tarnished his own reputation so much that there's no redemption and it can't get much worse that it already is.
-Mikayla W. (online)
Olivia Wenzel
2pm Tues-Thr
Before the election concluded, I think this would have been a pretty easy question to answer considering everything we went over in class. He's a major public figure and the New York Times is a newspaper trying to provide information to the public on a man who was potentially going to be the next president; I don't think Donald Trump would've had any ground to stand on in terms of a libel case.
However, now that he is president and has the power to appoint a new judge to the Supreme Court, I think that could change the outcome if he decides to move forward with this, assuming this case or another libel case reaches the Supreme Court. If he appoints a conservative judge, which in all likelihood he would, then the majority of the USSC judges would be conservative which I think could result in restricting the First Amendment.
Lisa Zammiello
T/TH 2:00
I think that if this case were to go to trial that it would be a long trial. The women would need to testify and provide as much evidence as possible. However, I think Trump would lose because of the level of protection that the first amendmant has. Our country holds free speech in very high regards, and any form of prior restraint would go against that. Also, if this was judged as a content based case, then it would almost for sure be a loss form Trump.
I believe that Trump would ultimately lose this case. It would be incredibly hard for trump to prove actual malice, and without any proof Trump simply will not win. if Trump could somehow prove that the allegations were 100% false he would have a some chance. Being a public figure comes with public criticism and scrutiny, he and his lawyers know that. The women also have the right to free speech, which is perfectly displayed in the New York Times. Also his reputation isn't doing him any favors.
Jacob Boucher
T/TH 11:00 am
Benjamin Rauls
T/TH 2:00pm
It’s interesting to comment about this after the fact of him winning the election. Before the election, Trump didn't have much of a case. He is public official running for the office of the President. This looks really bad for Trump and understandably he wants to shove it under the rug or prove that it never happened to begin with. I didn't think he had much of a case before the election. AS we have seen in previous cases, the courts often always side with the press in cases like this to protect not only free speech, but also the hot button issues the they cover. Actual malice would be hard to prove seeing as there is audio of him bragging about sexually assaulting women anyway. So, at the time of print, there is a pretty good chance the NYT had actual reason to believe this was a true story. Now that Trump is president, the case is almost laughable. It didn't hurt his chances at winning the presidency at all. It might have actually helped him. This is basically a “slam dunk” if you are the NYT defense. They win every time. With that being said, he has seen crazier things this election season.
I think the New York Times would prevail if this case went to trial. First trump must prove every element of his case, whereas the New York Times must only prove one suitable defense. Neutral reportage would serve as a suitable defense and the New York Times would win. As we have learned throughout this class, the court system protects and values a free press and our First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the NYT v Sullivan case provides plenty of reassurance that Trump would not stand a chance.
Carolanna Travis
Online
If Trump were to actually move forward with a lawsuit against The New York TImes I am fairly certain The New York Times would prevail. Now that Donald is President-Elect Trump, it is proof against the claim that any real harm was done to his reputaion. He is a strong public figure, constantly putting himself in the spot light. Actual Malice would be difficult to prove in this case seeing as how The New York Times took measures to investigate these claims, there was not a reckless disregaurd for the truth.
K. Macchia
11 am TTH
Kimberly G TTH 11:00
I think that Trump would lose this case because of the women that have stepped forward. I think that the New York Times would prove that their stories are true and that takes away the requirement for a libel case to reveal false accusations. The stories are allegedly true and therefore disqualifies the libel in the case. Throughout the trial I'm sure that the NYT will be able to prove the quotes in their stories are true.
I believe that Trump will lose the case against the New York Times. The women that have stepped forward with the information wouldn't be lying about their cases, if they were misinterpreted, they would have said something and neither did. Why would anyone lie about something like that? They wouldn't, it is a serious matter, so they would not take something like that lightly. I believe that Trump doesn't have a case and will lose. This is a case of actual malice, which is hard to prove, especially since Trump has audio of him bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Paige S.
Tues/Thurs 2pm
Carla S. 2 p.m.
I think the New York Times will prevail if this were to go to trial. Based on what we have learned with the Sullivan case, I don't see Donald Trump winning this case in the sense that he is a public figure.
The New York Times has every right to write a story about the event that have been happening around the presidential candidate (president-elect now) to inform the people about if they would really like him to be in our US president (obviously it was okay for some people).
I hope that our press laws continue to be as they are. We deserve it.
I believe that New York Times would win this case. This is a tough one to call though. I could easily see either side coming out on top. At first, I thought Trump was going to have a very cut and dry libel case, but with New York Times' rebuttal about his reputation already being bad I can't say for sure which one would win. I don't believe Trump could prove enough damages to win. Especially since he has said very similar statements about touching women. The only for sure way I believe Trump could win would be if he could find a way to prove that the women were lying but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Kyle B. Afternoon class
Ryan G
Tues/Thurs 2p
It's very easy to say that we believe that Trump will lose the case if he actually decides to take it to court, but I honestly believe that the biggest part of him actually going to court is the fact that he has the money to waste to make a point and if the Times wants to go to court, it's going to cost them. This will still have an impact that shows what happens when you write something about someone with money who has had more lawsuits than good thoughts. This is something we must remember when we look at our profession and how some people will use their money to stop us.
Tyler D
Tues/Thurs afternnon
I really don't see Trump winning this, unless they could somehow prove the women are lying. Especially now that he has won the presidency, I don't think he has much of a case for damages either.
I believe President elect Donald Trump would lose this case considering what we have gone over in class about libel. I think the NY Times best argument is the first amendment, and with him being who he is he doesn't stand a chance unless he can prove the women are lying.
History has shown us that winning a libel case as a prominent public figure is challenging, if not impossible. Donald Trump, at the time of the publication, was running to be the president of the United States. Could you imagine what kind of country the United States would be if political figures could limit speech? The Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of the media, but I think it should also be acknowledged that the tides can change. We saw this in our free speech cases that took place on school property. I do imagine that the Court, whether conservative or liberal, would look at this case and say "if you wanted to be president, then you should have accepted the consequences of criticism. It is these criticisms of government power that make our country great." I don't see this case even reaching a lower court, but it would be an entertaining -- or perhaps terrifying -- legal dispute to observe as a media person.
Francesca Neely-Dickey
Tues/Thurs. 2:00pm
Brandon Valencia
TTH 2:00
I believe the NYT is right in this case. Donald Trump has brought certain attention to himself including how much of a dick head he is. Treating women with absolutely no respect. Saying things like "grab her by the pussy." He continuosly voices vigorous words about women, muslims and immigrants. That being said he is running for the biggest job in the USA, president so voicing this public interest is needed so that the country knows the Truth. Yes it can also go the other way, but with whats at steak and Donalds Trumps words and actions, its only right the NYT be aloud to publish such article.
Erica Browning T/TH 11am
Winning a libel case has been proven to be a difficult thing, especially with someone so far in the public eye as to be running for the highest position in our government.Actual malice would be difficult for him to prove especially considering he has made statements about sexual assault and he won the election. NY Times did take a risk in publishing the info because there is always that chance it is not true, but unless that was 100 percent the case he wouldn't be able to prove all elements of libel. If this went up to supreme court level I feel that they would have to defend NY Times so that no chilling effect would occur with media disclosing information about someone we are voting to run our nation.
I don't think that Donald Trump plans on suing the NY Times because he would surely lose. He is a public figure being that he is a reality television star, a prominent business man and is running for the highest elected position in our government. I think the letter from his lawyers was basically a public announcement of Trump denying the accusations. Was this the correct format? I think a simple press release would have been sufficient but we are talking about a man that boasts how much he loves to sue people. I really like the response from the NY Times. I this situation would be different if there wasn't actual proof, the video of him saying he pushes himself on women. Even without the video I don't believe Donald Trump would have a case but the video proves that defamation isn't present in this case because the video proves that the statement isn't false.
New York Times would beat Trump in the case because like many other cases we have learned about regarding newspapers against public figures, make it very hard to prove actual malice. Especially, with having the recording regarding what Trump had said about "grabbing them by the p****," he lost this case before it has even begun.
Audra Register
T/TH 11 am
Abigail Raymond
T/TH 2:00
In my opinion i believe that Donald Trump does not have a libel case against the New York Times. In this case, Trump's lawyer said that the article was damaging his reputation and that the women only confessed their stories because of the presidential election. I do find it a coincidence that the this article was published in the prime of the election period, but i do no think it is a strong enough argument for them to win a case(if there were to be one). On the other hand, i feel the New York Times are simply reporting the facts that have been given to them. The information that the ladies gave to them was newsworthy and relevant to current events. I think the New York Times also makes a good argument when they say they are not damaging Trump's reputation due to his past remarks and actions with women. Trump as openly said and been seen doing curl things to woman. Therefore, the New York Times are doing nothing but capitalizing on what Trump as already said and done.
Katerina Charalambous
T/TH 2:00pm
I am not surprised these women spoke about their encounters with Donald Trump and I am also not shocked that Donald Trump wants to try and bring these women to court, he believes that he has the power to get these kinds of statements removed, yet he has already caused damage to himself by his own words. I do not think Trump will be able to win the case if it actually goes to court, but I think it would be quite entertaining to watch if he does. But like we have discussed in class, these women are not causing any more damage to his reputation. Also New York Times mentioned that this article was newsworthy, which I also believe it is. They were only publishing facts these women were telling them. We can easily find evidence against Trump when he has openly spoken to the public about how he talks and acts towards women. So I don't think that Trump has a chance of winning a libel case with this article.
Andrea Martinez
T/Th 11 a.m.
Based on what I've learned in Media Law, I do not think that Trump has a valid case against the New York Times. Although these comments may have been damaging, he did end up winning the election so I don't think the court would think these publications were too damaging. The only way Trump would have a chance at winning this case is if they can prove that these women are lying. The New York Times reported what these women said because Trump is a very important public figure at the moment and the public has a right to know about these allegations of a potential President.
I believe Trump would lose the case. It will be difficult for Trump to prove actual malice, and it would be hard to prove that the ladies are lying. All of the elements of libel are present in this case so I do not see Trump having a chance to win.
Lauren Hall
T/TH 2:00 pm
If this went to Trial I think it could go either way, however the odds for New York Times to win are much greater. In order for Trump to win this case, he would not only have to prove these claims were false but also prove that the Media outlet knew that they were false before publishing. This is extremely hard to do but possible. Therefore my bet is on NYT. It would be cool to see Trump prevail and prove us all wrong about himself too though.
Ashley S.
TTH 2pm
If Trump and NYT went to trial I believe NYT would win because like McCraw stated in his letter it is newsworthy. Donald Trump's actions and words he has expressed about women has already hurt his reputation He did that for himself. That being said I don't think Trump will even go forth with suing because he has already won presidency I don't think he'd care about this anymore.
I believe that New York Times would win this case for various reasons. First of all, Trump would not be able to prove harm to his reputation because of what has been published. That damage to his reputation, if there was any, is because of what he has said on the past.
Since trump is a public figure, his lawyers would have to prove actual malice. I don’t believe this is actual malice. The New York Times has legitimate testimonies form woman that have been victimized by Trump. The only way Trump’s lawyers could allegate this, is saying that the credibility of these women is absent, just like in Curtis Publishing Co. V. Butts, but I still believe this wouldn’t help much. I do believe there is credibility on the testimonies.
I agree with the response of NYT by saying that this is newsworthy information. This makes this case even harder to Trump to win. This case has a lot of public interest. People need to know the background of who they are voting for, and this kind of information is very important. The New York Times had to make these women’s voice heard.
Enrique R. 2pm Tuesdays/Thursdays
Jennifer G.
T/Th 11 a.m.
We’ve talked about many cases how challenging it is to win a libel case for a prominent public figure because it’s difficult to prove actual malice. With Donald Trump, now being the President-Elect, I don’t believe he will be able to win this libel case if he ends up suing The New York Times. Especially since he’s made remarks and statements about women, and I think The New York Times made a good argument by saying that they are not damaging Trump’s reputation since he’s openly said all those things about women in the media.
Clayton K.
TTh 2:00
I, first, believe that Donald Trump will no long sue the New York Times because of his election to the president of the United States. If the election were still going on (thank god it isn't), I do not think that Trump could win this case. The statements he made about women are terrible, but they were put out to the media as a speed bump in his campaign. He wouldn't win the libel case because, in the end, no harm was done to his reputation, or it would be difficult to prove so.
Amanda Woolery
T/H 11:00
If this case goes to trial, which I hope it will because it will be incredibly interesting, I believe that the New York Times will win. Since Donald Trump is a public figure, he will specifically have to prove actual malice and also that the accusations are false; both which I think would be incredibly hard for him to do. As stated in the response letter from the New York Times, the fact that Trump himself has bragged about inappropriately touching woman does not help his case at all. I also think that the New York Time's defense of newsworthiness is very applicable in this situation since there has been so much talk of Trump and his behavior towards women during the election. Overall, I'm very curious as to how this will all play out since he is now the president elect.
Allison W.
TTh 2:00
I loved the Times response to Trump and his lawyers, it would be an injustice to silence these voices. Trump would not be able to prove all 5 pieces necessary for libel. Nothing Trump says damages his reputation sadly. Proving the statements to be defamatory would be extremely hard, considering my belief that they're true. The Times would certainly win this case and I almost wish Trump could take it to the USSC before anyone retires and he stocks the court with conservatives.
The things that Trump has said about women are awful and I still can't believe anyone would say those things, regardless if they were in private. However, if the this goes to trial then i have no doubt Trump would win. I think that he would win the libel case because one could argue that since this was exposed his reputation has been harmed.
Malea Hall
T/TH 11AM
I do not think anything would prevail if this went to trial because I do not think there is enough evidence for Trump to prove that The New York Times met the conditions for actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. I think it would be very interesting if this were to go to trial because of the high profile status Trump carries and the controversial topic that this case embodies. The New York Times made an important statement by saying that their article is not causing his reputation any more damage because he spoke about sexually assaulting women from his own mouth. I think it is important for America to know all the facts and if Trump were to win I believe that could be classified as government censorship, which the USSC has done everything to make sure will not happen.
Personally, I am up in the air as to who would win this case. As said by David McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times, a libel claim is to protect ones reputation. McCraw gave multiple examples of comments Trump has made and admitted to saying in the past that we are all aware of (whether locker room talk or not). McCraw made a point in which this is not harming Trump's reputation of which Trump is already known for these types of comments and actions. Trump would not win this case if these facts were proven and vise versa I don't see how The New York Times could win this case when they could be false statements. Not saying that women would or are making this up, but it's happened in the past. I think this case would be very interesting to look at if it went to trail, I would definitely love to hear more about it. I guess if I had to choose, I would think the court would be in favor of The New York Times due to actual malice.
-Katherine K TTH, 2 p.m.
I don't think that Trump would be able to win this case for two reasons. The first reason is that he will not be able to prove all the elements of libel. He would have a rough time trying to prove actual malice in this case. The second reason is because Trump is a public figure and as said in class, it is very hard to win a libel case as a public figure.
Trump also has had a long standing reputation of speaking this way about women, so it would be hard to pin the blame for "damaging his reputation" on just the New York Times in this case.
If this case were to go to trial, Trump would easily lose.
The New York Times was only publishing what news outlets have the right to publish. Amid all of the presidential controversies going on, Trump's lawyer singled out the New York Times for using their First Amendment rights and the court would use precedent from the Sullivan case to support the Times. Also, I love how the New York Times lawyer also pointed out that Trump should not worry about a blow to his reputation from libel because Trump has done enough damage to his own reputation time and time again, which throws out that argument. Trump is a public figure with a celebrity persona, news outlets interviewing victims of sexual abuse and publishing it comes with the territory.
Brooke Flores, T/TH 11 a.m.
Sadly, I feel that Trump would lose. We have gone over several cases in class and it astonishes me at how the results may be. The New York Times has every right to publish these stories, Trump is a public figure and now he's the dang president. Sullivan is key in this case, simply because it would support Times.
Sydney Herrera
T/TH 2 p.m.
Alyson C. T/TR 11 am.
I think the lawsuit threat on Trump's part was more a PR stunt if anything to show that he doesn't take the allegations lightly and wants to convince people of his innocence. However, I think his lawyer knows that this isn't a case he would actually win. This is due in large part to the fact that it would be pretty difficult to prove damages in this case - especially seeing now as he has won the election.
Sydney Woy T/TH 11 am
If a lawsuit were to happen, the NYT would surly prevail, using the Sullivan case as a precedent. Trump is a public figure and would not be able to prove actual malice in this case.
Meghan Hopper T/TR 2p.m.
I do not think Trump would win this case if it were to go to trial. I think what the New York Times's Lawyer said was an excellent point. Due to the fact that they published a newsworthy article about something that is a huge concern to the public, especially after all of the comments Trump has made about women, they followed all of the rules and therefore did not break the law.
The main takeaway that I have learned about libel is falsity. When looking into the Donald Trump v. New York Times libel case I believe that Trump would lose. In order to prove that Trump as the plaintiff would win this case he would have to prove that there was defamation to his reputation, as well as identification and dissemination. And since Trump is a public figure he would fall into the actual malice category, which means that the Times intentionally meant to write purposely-false statements to harm his reputation.
The New York Times proved the responsible reporting when they did their research and interviewed numerous women who spoke up about how Trump sexually harassed them. The Bush interview was also shown to the public and that was evidence that Trump did in fact say those things he did towards women. There is no back tracking from that point on Trumps past.
While learning in class I remember that Justice Brennan in the Supreme Court said that news reporters have that extra breathing room with their stories that not everything will be perfected 100%. To conclude, I do not think that Trump would win since his reputation has already been damaged based off of the things he has said to the public.
Kiersten Ehr
T-TH 2:00 pm
Spencer Borst
T/TH 2:00
From what we've learned in class about libel cases, I think New York Times would win if this case if taken to trial. I don't think Trump would be able to prove damages to his reputation or life in general.Especially since he's a public figure, it would be even more difficult to prove actual malice. Between the leaked video and his actions in general, he has no chance.
I think Trump will lose this case. I will say , what Martinez has told us many many times, SULLIVAN! The reasons of why the Justices were in favor of New York Times will still hold up today, and especially to the case of Trump. It will in fact dare to harm the journalist's right of free speech, and that alone is unconstitutional.
Sergio Garcia
Tues/Thurs 2:00
Trump being a public figure, I do not think that he has a chance of winning a case like this. He would have a very hard time proving actual malice. His own words and actions have shown that these claims are plausible. I think the New York Times proved responsible reporting with their research and interviews. Donald Trump would most likely fail in proving libel if he chose to pursue a lawsuit.
Benjamin Arnecke
Tuesday/Thursday 2:00
Andrew C 2pm afternoon
If this went to trial New York Times would definitely win as explained why in their email back to Mr. President Elect Trumps lawyer. I agree with NYT response because they make a very valid point that he has already created that reputation for himself. For a public figure/official to sue for libel they would have to prove actual malice, in this case it would be near impossible to prove actual malice because he has already put himself on the stage. The article was just a miniature encore to please the fans. Also, if you look back to the Sullivan case the supreme court would not rule in Mr. President Elect Trumps favor because that would infringe on the presses rights with a potential chilling effect.
Chris S.
T/TH 11AM
For this case, it seems like Trump could give the NY Times a hard battle. Ultimately, I think the NY Times would win the case though. While Trump may be able to prove some of the elements of libel, the NY Times could argue that because he was running for president the public deserves to know the facts about the candidate that they may vote for. The newsworthiness would outweigh any 'damage' to Trump's reputation. Even then, Trump said these things and the impressions we get from the released video and victim's testimonies are already pretty widely felt. Regardless of whether he meant them or not, he said them and how is the public supposed to read his mind and say to themselves, "Oh, he's just kidding."
I think Donald Trump will lose against the NYT. I think one of the main arguments made would be that Trump is a public figure and because he is a public figure he would have to prove actual malice. NYT made a choice to report on the women who were allegedly victimized and distribute what these women had to say about Trump. It was newsworthy. There is no way that actual malice can be proven without absolute knowledge and proof of the falsity of the women's statement. Also, just as the NYT said at the end of their letter, this is a matter of public concern and, like Sullivan, allowing Trump to win could cause a potential chilling effect. If Trump won, it could result in the press and victims of kind censoring themselves. The media also need breathing room with controversial topics like this.
Emily Santana
TR - 11:00 am
Masey McCracken
T/TH 11AM
In this case, I believe that New York Times would win. It would be hard for Trump to win simply because of Sullivan. It would be extremely hard for Trump to prove actual malice, especially since we have all heard the "locker room talk." This kind of talk makes these accusations all believable. I also believe that since Trump has gone on to win the election that it would be a pointless lawsuit to go further with. Not only would it be extremely hard to prove actual malice, but I do not believe you could argue that it damaged his reputation because he still went on to win the election.
I believe that if Trump were to sue, the case would not go very far. Since he is a public figure, he would have to prove actual malice. For what has been said about why the women waited so long, well, that could easily be explained by them being fearful of victim shaming. Thankfully NYT has cases like Sullivan on their side to argue that if Trump were to win, a chilling effect may take place. The media has been given breathing room through multiple cases so that they may express their First Amendment rights and I doubt that any court would try to take that away. NYT was only writing on behalf of public interest and public concern which is what their job is so I do not see any footing that Trump or his lawyer could get to move a case in their favor.
Alison Bryce, 11 a.m. T/TH
I think NYT would win. Trump doesn't have a great enough chance of proving actual malice or any type of libel. Times also has recording of him making statements against his favor. Also, with all of these women saying things against Trump it's unlikely he would be able to prove they were all somehow lying about what they said. I see no way Trump could come out with a victory on this one.
Ashley Casanova, 2:00 class
Without a doubt New York Times would win this case. NYT is publishing what these women are saying, so they couldn't be lying. However, the women in the article could be lying, but with all everything Trump has already said about women in the past it's difficult for some people to not believe the stories. Did the article hurt Trumps reputation? Maybe, but no more than he has already hurt it so it would be difficult to prove that the NYT hurt his reputation. Trumps a public figure, so it will be hard to prove actual malice. If this were go to court I don't think it would make it very far and NYT times would win.
Carroll-Gonzalez, S
T/R 11am
Marques M. 2pm
While it was very nice to understand the lawyer jargon in the letter, I definitely do not think Donald Trump will win this case. Solely because he is a public figure. If you are a public figure, then you have to prove actual malice. And Trump is going to have a very hard time trying to prove that the females actually caused actual malice. Yes, it is correct that since an investigation has not been done yet; the major defense to libel being truth cannot be used right now. But personally I think Trump is going to drop the case especially now since he is the President-Elect. He is not going to want to spend time in court fighting something small like this. However, I do think once he takes office he is going to try and put laws on how the media tells stories and create some restrictions to where public figures like himself can sue media organizations for libel.
I'll give this one to the New York Times. I don't think Trump would come out victorious in this particular case, but I think a bigger reason why I'd expect NYT to win is because it seems extremely difficult (in every case) to actually prove intentional malice. Regardless, I think at the very least Trump would have a decent argument simply due to the timing of the claims and recent happenings.
I believe N.Y.T would win this case because of the fact the Donald Trump would have to prove actual malice, which is hard to prove as a public figure. Like the letter from Mr. McCraw stated, Trump has bragged about his actions with women in a degrading and misogynic fashion. The article posted does have the interest of public concern, and the voices of the women who boldly and courageously stepped up to speak out should be heard. I believe the N.Y.T went strictly and professionally by the rightful law, and would not lose if Trump decides to go through with this case.
Brianna W. T/TH 11 a.m.
Mary B. T/TH 11:00 AM
I think that if the case goes straight to court like this that NYT will will and Trump will lose because ehe is a public figure. I think the only chance that Trump has of winning is proving that the statements were 100% false and proving that the articles harmed his reputation. Now that he still won the election, i think it would be hard to prove damage to reputation. The only argument that Trump has is that NYT was negligently reporting this to harm him.
Donald Trump's case is tenuous at best. Suing (and winning) for libel is a difficult preposition as it is, especially when you consider Trump's status as a public figure and the fact that his lawyers are suing for libel per se, which forces him to prove that the New York Times' story was false and defamatory. And, not only that, Trump needs to convince the court that the article negatively impacted him -- actual damages -- and that hurts his already weak case. Ultimately, I don't think Trump has a legitimate shot to beat the New York Times in a libel suit. The odds are heavily stacked against him. Besides, the press is an important institution with a public duty to inform the public. The media isn't designed to warp its coverage to protect a man who has done little to deserve protection.
Alexi R, afternoon class
I feel that the New York Times could win this case if it made it to court, Trump is a very dominant public figure right now and would be able to get in contact with a superb lawyer. It would be difficult in this situation for Trump to prove actual malice. Regardless, I feel that at this time Donald doesn't have the time to really take this to court considering the timing of things and the election being so close. And maybe the women could have been paid off to claim the things they did because of the timing and to mess with Trumps reputation, although he already has established the reputation.
Matthew Ruiz
T/TH 2pm
Richard Dray afternoon class.
I believe that should the civil suit involving Trump go to trial he would lose to the New York Times. I feel that this would be the result because Trump, in my opinion does not have much of an argument. Like Mr McCraw said in his letter, Trump already has a reputation for this kind of thing and these women coming forward add to a reputation he has developed all by himself. I feel that this situation does not constitute libel, and I believe that the elements of libel are not present. My main reasoning for this is that the statement of fact here is not that the NYT are asserting anything about Trump themselves, but that these women are. The NYT are simply reporting on what these women are saying and not necessarily asserting themselves that he has taken part in these deplorable actions. If anything, Trump would have more of a case against the women who are making the statements rather than against the NYT who are simply reporting on it.
Leslie Moran T/TH 2pm
If there was a civil lawsuit involving Trump v. New York Times, I feel Trump would loose. As said in the letter NYT sent to Donald Trumps lawyer, he has already established his reputation as one who does not have much respect for women. The women coming forward and telling their stories about their encounters with Trump will do nothing to damage his reputation. In addition, his running for presidency makes him very newsworthy and of importance nationally, and it is the NYT's right to inform the nation of these stories.
Albert Besteiro
T/TH 2:00 - 3:20 PM
If this case went to trial, I see a very slim chance that Donald trump would win. The letter that the NY Times sent back to Trump's attorney says it best. The claims were highly investigated and the women in their story are sticking by their claims. In court Trumps would be shot down and I believe no criminal or monetary outcome would prevail. The NY Times seems so sure that they would win, that they even taunt Trumps lawyers to go to court. Also, since Trump is in the spotlight, and currently the President-Elect, this information could potentially be seen as "newsworthy" and not considered libel.
Cody B. TTH - 2:00-3:30
Trump is a public figure and now the president-elect. If he won the presidential election, it doesn't seem to me as if there are actual damages to be proven, therefore failing to prove actual malice.
Trump won't win this lawsuit and in my opinion, a decision to follow through with a lawsuit would harm his own reputation for bringing the issue back into the spotlight.
I don't believe Trump can win this case of libel. It only makes sense that the New York Times wins. They published something that was newsworthy, the public has a right to know their next president. New York Times also seems extremely confident in their journalist and sources. I think it's safe to assume that the information wasn't recklessly gathered and published. In addition, Trump's words and actions have already harmed his reputation and there's no fault or proof of damages.
Gabriela Perez T/TH 2:00pm
I am a little late to the conversation...
It is November 18th... and Trump is the President Elect. I know all of these things that the New York Times are reporting on him are potentially harming, but he won. So I'm not sure that he can prove all 5 points of libel. Also, all of the cases we have been over in class involving the New York Times, have been won by the New York Times. It's a pretty big fight but NYT seems pretty difficult to beat.
Summer Gilbert T/TH 11:00am
Larisa Rodriguez Online:
I dont believe that Trump would win this case. It is clearly stated in NYTimes response letter that it was newsworthy information that people deserve to know. I dont think NYT did this with malice because the article included his response giving both sides of the story.Trump is now president despite this article.. so apparently it didn't hurt his reputation too much. Another thing I would like to agree with on the NYTimes response to Trumps lawyer is the fact that he has already hurt his reputation enough on his own and didnt need any help.
I think it's almost impossible for Trump to win the case against NYT. Trump's reputation towards woman was already destroyed by the audio from his conversation with Billy Bush. Not only the audio, but the comment's he has made regarding women in his Miss Universe contest. I think this could categorize Trump as a libel-proof plaintiff. Since Donald Trump is a public figure as well, he would have to prove actual malice in this case as well.
Kelle Gandy T/Th 11am
Alrighty, a couple of things, 1: NYT is savage AF! 2: I do not beleive that this has the potential to go to trial. I say so becuase Donald Trump is pretty much libel proof at this point in his career. He has bragged about the things metioned in the response from NYT and it appears that a court of law would not deliver the desired outcome for Donald.
It goes along with what Prof. Martinez has said before don't come to the court with dirty hands.
Joseph P.
online
I think once again the New York Times will prevail if Trump actually sues them for libel. I say this becasue of the Sullivan case and seeing that Trump has to prove actual malice, there is no victory for him. The things that he has said about women during his speeches, you can infer how he would actually be toward women. So it's not like the New York Times said anthing with the reckless disregarded the truth.
Nadia Johnson
2:00PM T/TH
Strictly speaking about the way libel laws are i do not believe Mr Trump would win the lawsuit. He is deemed a public figure which makes it more difficult for him to win. another thing is that if the NYT uses "truth" as a defense and the matter at hand was proved to be true than Mr trump would almost certainly lose.
Also, NYT is a media source that published newsworthy material that was important for the public to know about a presidential candidate. that adds another hurdle to overcome should Trump chooses to proceed in the lawsuit.
The only possible way i can think of that Trumps could possible win by is if NYT did not fact check the claims before publishing and/or knowingly took false information.
Sergey C
T,TH 2pm
Christa Trevino 2pm T/TH
Suing for libel is practically impossible when you're a public figure, and Donald Trump is as big as it gets for the time being. Especially now that he's president. He will not win any case if he sues for libel because the courts hold that any public figure should be expectant of public comment and backlash that comes with being in the spotlight. Trump will only make a fool of himself and I wouldn't mind seeing that. We're also talking about the media here. To avoid a chilling effect, courts will always protect media outlets in doing their job and saying a good deal of what they like in order to avoid them shirking their job of being the watchdogs of the government because of libel cases such as the one Trump wants to have.
I don't think Trump has any chance of winning this case, unless he somehow finds a bunch of witnesses from that plane ride decades ago that can back him up. And that would be far more suspicious than someone claiming he assaulted them, at this point. As the times said in their response, the events reported seem to be in character.
The Times was writing about a breaking story of national importance. If some of the details are wrong I don't think anyone could fault them, and as of now no one has been able to show evidence they were wrong about anything. Trump was just blustering, he might sue for show but it won't go anywhere.
Andrew S., T/Th 11 am
I think the New York Times would win the case. Some elements of libel may have been present, but not all. It seemed like Times was reporting facts and wasn't intentionally trying cause harm. Also, Trump claims the defamatory statement is false, but evidence points against it. Overall Trump would have a hard time providing proof to win the case.
Kristy D. T/TH 2p.m.
Nathalie C.
Tuesday, Thursday 11 a.m.
If I were a judge, I would have a hard time taking this case seriously. I don't even think the case would make it that far. It seems like it would be easily dismissed. Trump is a public figure and he'll have a hard time proving the elements of libel. I doubt he would win...but then again, I doubted he would win the presidency...
I'm now posting my third comment I'm not sure what's happening but my comments aren't showing up.
If Donald Trump were to attempt to sue New York Times I think hands down that New York Times would win. I think this because though the article has identification, dissemination, and fault, it doesn't really carry defamation, and proof of damages. I say this because the video (that someone commented should be thrown out, which I disagree because it was not obtained illegally) shows Donald Trump boasting about sexual assault. Causing women to come forward as alleged victims of sexual assault against President Trump. Second proof of damages would be very hard to prove because he has already harmed his reputation himself (in New York Times response to Donald Trump they kindly remind him of that), through tweets, comments, campaign speeches. The article the Times printed is not at fault for people believing the things they do, obviously because he is still the President Elect.
Jessica Strahan
Tuesday, Thursday 2:00
Based on the way Trump behaves and the statements he has made regarding how he views women and how he is interacted with women, I don't believe that Trump would win a Libel case. Trump has already "dug his grave" (if you will) as far as his reputation goes, so Times having printed this or any other similar articles can't truly further damage his reputation. NYT won't pull the articles nor be asked to pull articles as they are not in violation of national security and ARE published in for public interest... especially since they were published per-election.
Sarah. S
Tues/Thurs 11am
I believe that even if this lawsuit were to happen, Trump would not win, because he doesn't have a real case against what the newspapers are publishing. I also believe that Trump is only threatening libel lawsuits as a way to try and scare the newspapers into taking the stories down. Furthermore, I am still in shock that this country had up to 40% of registered voters not partake in what many people are saying was the most important election this country has ever had; and I am shocked that the American people elected someone who has no political experience, is openly okay with mocking disabled people, and thinks it is okay to joke around and talk about grabbing women wherever he wants without the women's permission. This is only my opinion, but I believe that America made a mistake electing him and out of all the people in the United States the selection of the candidates could not have been more terrible.
Matt P
T/TH 2 p.m.
With the knowledge from the cases we've gone over in class, I doubt Trump will succeed in a libel lawsuit. From what everyone can see, he has already trashed his reputation. With the comments he says and all of these accusations coming up about him, his reputation is already on a downward spiral. This being said, it would be hard for him to prove actual malice. Trump doesn't really have a case here against NYT. If he did take it to trial, he would lose. Unless he has some strings to pull to get out of it, which being the man he is I'm sure he does unfortunately.
Bailey Savage
T/TH 2pm
I do not believe that Trump would win over The New York Times. Trump is a public figure which means he would have to actual malice as well as all the elements of libel in order to be able to win. I believe that proving actual malice would be very difficult for Trump to do in this case. Considering what he has said about women and other comments, it would be difficult for him to prove that this article damaged his reputation.
Chelsea Kubenka T/TH 2pm
Trump would totally lose any case he brought against the women who accused him of sexual assault mainly because the burden of proof falls upon Mr. Trump to convince others of whether the plaintiffs were lying or stretching the truth. Either way the litigation of 11 different women would look awful on the president-elect and waste a lot of time further sullying his image and the women's. Now if Trump were suing the New York Times for the story he would still lose because the story sheds light on a Trump's deeper newsworthy issue regarding his behavior towards women and punishing the Times for doing so would fail miserably especially considering the audio logs of multiple instances where Trump has said sickening things about women including his own daughter. I am baffled that more women haven't claimed any other cases of sexual assault considering the pompous like entity that is Donald Trump as expressed on reality television.
Donald Trump will not pursue lawsuit with the Times or any of the women because he is now under a very large microscope known as the American people and his involvement in any further hindrances leading up to him taking office will be disastrous for his political career.
I think Back to the Future nailed the perfect Donald impersonator: Biff Tannen. A satirical representation of Donald I would say. Someone that seems like a big bully and clearly comes on too strong with the ladies.
"What's wrong, McFly? Chicken?"
--Logan Martin
11AM T-TH
I hope that a member of Trump's team advises him not to follow through with lawsuit. I do not think that he would win a case against the New York times for a number of reasons. I think the response letter from the NYT was written perfectly and showed many reasons for their justified publishing of this article. Because of the fact that he was a candidate for presidency made the issue a matter of public concern, regardless of the accusation in question. They are right in pointing out that he did, in fact, create reason to believe the claim from his recent comments.
If he did continue with this lawsuit, I think He would risk losing the "support" of many citizens of the U.S. I say support loosely because some of the support He may receive is forced acceptance of the election. This would show many people that He doesn't care about us and we, the public needs to know. It is a sense of control. It shows that He feels He is above the law and the way media works also. If He wins the case I think it could be the beginning of a downward spiral.
Mary E.
morning
Based on what we have discussed in during the libel cases, I believe that if President-elect Trump went to trail he would end up losing that case. The information the New York Times published wasn't false and newsworthy. Also Trump is a public figure so that would bolster the New York Times case more in their favor. It would be difficult for Trump to convince the court otherwise.
Anything is possible after all, so he might end up winning it. He won the election and most people thought that was going to happen.
Davren M.
T/Th - 2PM
The New York Times would prevail. Trump is a public figure, he would have to prove actual malice and I don’t think he would be able to prove that given he has been unable to produce other financial information. The information was disseminated and he was identified, but if he can’t prove actual malice I don’t think he would have a chance at winning.
Also, the New York Times sat down with these women and they came forward. They were doing their job and reporting the story. Even if the women have lied, I don’t think that would be New York Times fault because they were practicing responsible reporting.
Trump would have to prove that all of the allegations were false and based off of previous cases we’ve studied even if one of them isn’t true journalists have that breathing room and security in reporting.
-Tiffany Y, afternoon
I do not think Trump would be able to win a lawsuit against the New York Times. Since he is a very public figure newspapers have every right to write about him. If newspapers were to get punished for publishing negative things about politicians it would go against the very principle of having a free press. As president Trump is going to have to get used to people judging him.
Rachel Bloom
T/Th 11:00
I believe that Donald Trump being elected president will definitely clear any libel lawsuits against him. I think both candidates were bad candidates from the get go and they both have many legal issues and honestly, though different issues, they are both just as bad as each other. All in all, if Trump tried to win this, I don't think he would but now being president it is possible they will go away themselves.
Trump would not win if he filed a case against the New York Times because first he would have to prove actual malice. He is a public figure that has been in the public eye for many years and with that I am not shocked that there has been so much found against him. I only think more dirt on him will uncover as his presidential term goes on. Just as the New York Times has said, their article has no effect on his reputation that he has not already created himself. If anything Trumps lawyer might be able to win for reckless disregard of the truth because of how old the woman’s claims against Trump were but even that would be a stretch. In conclusion I do not see the New York Times writing an apology for something as newsworthy as that article any time soon or losing in a court case against Trump if it ever came to be that far.
Laura Cortines 2pm class
Being that Donald Trump is a public figure, he would have to prove actual malice in this libel case. I honestly don't think there is anyway he could win this case, President-Elect or not. If he won this case it would go against everything that happened in the New York Times v. Sullivan case. I'm pretty certain the supreme court justices would still stand with how they ruled for the New York Times v. Sullivan case. There was a unanimous vote back then and I think the same thing would happen in Donald Trump's case. These stories were too newsworthy to not be written. True or false, they were still accusations by women that couldn't of gone unnoticed or unpublished.
Victoria Vaughn 2pm
Honestly, I don't see him winning this case whatsoever. Like a lot of my peers have said before me, he would have to prove malice and so far, no good. This is all protected by the First Amendment and history has proven that Donald Trump's "problem" with this is nothing more than a personal one, and he is a public figure, after all. We all know, from what we've learned, that makes all the difference. The Constitution will prevail.
-Claudia Boone, MC4301 Online.
I believe that if trump sues the New York Times for libel, Trump would probably lose because there are not all the elements of libel, there is dissemination: the New York Times published it, is the statement defamatory? I dont think so because the New York Times only played the audio of Trump's voice, which is Trump himself talking about what he does. Also, I dont think Trump is able to prove actual malice, which he would need to prove that the NYT published the article knowing it was false and he would also have to prove damages to his reputation, which that didnt actually happened because he is the elected president.
Andrea Bolivar 2 PM Class
I agree with Andrea, I think Trump would lose if he sued for libel. There is no evidence to prove actual malice. I also agree that there is not proof to damage his reputation because this all happened before the election, and he still became our president elect. It would also be fairly difficult to prove because he is a public figure. These were also stories that were from recordings so he would have an even harder time proving his case.
Kambrie L. T-TH 2:00.
If this case went to trial, I believe that the New York Times would prevail. Trump doesn’t have a chance in winning this case, simply because it would be nearly impossible for him to prove libel- in that the New York Times acted with actual malice when publishing the article entitled “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately.” Donald Trump is considered a public figure because he has a considerable level of fame. He cannot expect complete privacy, and avoid all public ridicule/ opinion. The New York Times is simply telling the story of two women who make these claims about Trump. It is difficult to prove that their claims are untrue.
-Lauren P. Afternoon
I can't imagine Trump winning in a libel lawsuit against the New York Times should he actually take this to trial. Libel is a difficult thing to prove and it wouldn't be any easier considering Trump's celebrity status. Trump would surely be considered an all-purpose public figure without any hesitation considering his political status and everything he'd done prior to running for office. Beyond that, any ruling against the New York Times in this case would potentially lead to restrictions on the press which is what the court has actively avoided with many of the cases that reach them. It's a first amendment argument in favor of the New York Times and there's no plausible way for Trump to even stand a chance in coming out victorious should he follow through with a lawsuit.
I personally do not think that Trump would win this case against The New York Times. In the past, Trump has always been very quick to shoot down people who have "defamatory" things to say about him with unnecessary legal action. Trump always tries to play the victim when there is actually quite a bit of evidence going against his responses. He has in fact had multiple other cases in which he has approached women in a vulgar or inappropriate manor that is defamatory to his image within itself. I think that Trump has started to use his political status to his advantage when he is deciding how to execute the way that the public is perceiving him; we've also seen his wife propose similar allegations of defamatory and libel in the past. Given the initial response that Trump's representative gave about this being a case of libel, that within itself rendered this case unfit for anything ruling in his favor as it will be damn near impossible to prove actual malice.
Preston Reeder (Online)
Post a Comment