The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Carter Page's Lawsuit Against Yahoo!, HuffPost & Michael Isikoff
From today's majority opinion by Chief Justice Collins Seitz in Page v. Oath:
Dr. Carter Page, a public figure with ties to President Trump's 2016 campaign, claimed that Oath Inc.'s online news organizations published eleven defamatory articles about him in 2016 and 2017. Michael Isikoff authored a Yahoo! News article that forms the backbone of the amended complaint …. [Ten] other articles were written by employees at TheHuffingtonPost.com … and refer to the Isikoff Article …. The remaining seven articles were written by HuffPost non-employee "contributors" …. The articles discuss an "intelligence report" from a "well-placed Western intelligence source" with information that Page met with senior Russian officials and discussed potential benefits to Russia if Donald Trump won the presidential election.
The Superior Court granted Oath's motion to dismiss. It found that the Isikoff Articles and Employee Articles were either true or substantially true; Page was at least a limited purpose public figure, meaning he was required to plead actual malice by the individuals responsible for publication, and he failed to meet that standard; the fair report privilege for government proceedings applied; and Oath was protected for the Contributor Articles under the federal Communications Decency Act. Page appeals the Superior Court's judgment except the Superior Court's ruling that the Employee Articles were true.
We affirm the Superior Court's judgment. The Isikoff Article describes a federal investigation into a report about Page—an investigation that existed and was being pursued by the FBI. At a minimum, the article is substantially true, and as such, Page did not state a claim for defamation based on that article. Page also fails to state a claim for defamation with respect to the remaining articles. At oral argument, Page conceded that if the Isikoff Article is not defamatory, he loses on his remaining claims.
Page also failed to allege that the individuals responsible for publication of those articles acted with actual malice. Finally, Page does not contest the Superior Court's holding that the Employee Articles were true. Because these grounds dispose of Page's defamation claims, we do not address any of the Superior Court's other grounds for dismissal.
Justice Karen Valihura dissented:
Although I focus my dissent on just one of the eleven challenged articles, that article is the fulcrum of Page's Complaint. I disagree with the Majority that Page did not adequately allege that it is reasonably conceivable that Oath, acting through Michael R. Isikoff …, the author of the article dated September 23, 2016 entitled "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin," published on Oath's Yahoo website …, acted with actual malice. I also disagree with the Majority that the Isikoff Article was substantially true. Finally, I disagree that the fair report privilege applies. It is well established that a person cannot "confer the privilege upon a third person, even a member of the communications media, by making the original statement under a collusive arrangement with that person for the purpose of conferring the privilege upon him." Page alleges a collusive arrangement here.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I may be mistaken but I thought it was impossible to defame Carter Page. Seems I was right.
To what standard do you have to prove “actual malice ?” Is it 51-49, or 95-5 or so ?
I should have thought pretty much any article in a liberal/left organ, by a liberal/left journalist, about a political enemy would start at about 80-20 right from the get go.
It is not a quantum of truth, it is a mens rea – reckless disregard is the standard.
Well, in a civil matter — which this is — you have to prove any element — which actual malice is — by a preponderance of the evidence.
But Lee is apparently misled by jargon; actual malice for defamation purposes literally has nothing to do with malice in the sense of animus.
There was actual malice directed toward Trump, but Delaware supreme court shrugs off the collateral damage resulting from those reckless attacks.
Actual malice may be one of the worst bits of legal jargon left in the lexicon. It has nothing to do with malice.
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
And collateral damage is not part of the calculus in a defamation case that I’m aware of.
Sorry, if I had read all the way down before supporting I wouldn’t have bothered to say what Sarcastr0 had already said.
Was Page a public official? I don’t think he was.
Dr. Carter Page, a public figure with ties to President Trump’s 2016 campaign
Thanks for the correction regarding malice, I did think it included some element of animus along with the knowing falsehood. It is evil to print a defamatory statement which one knows to be false. Animus towards the injured party is not an element of the evil, but might be motive.
However, the entire Russian collusion episode was a knowing falsehood by much of the media as well as the FBI. Comey’s claim that he did not know the dossier was paid for by the Dems when he leaked the existence of the investigation to his pal is not believable. I agree with the dissent, the case should have gone forward to determine if a collusive arrangement existed. The evidence turned up by the IG was damning for the FBI, were certain members of the media in on it?
That’s, of course, not what either the independent Mueller or the GOP-controlled Senate committee found.
Wrong on both counts batman.
Mueller said it was not his purview to investigate the source of the dossier and he said there was no evidence of collusion.
The senate report was very critical of FBI’s use and reliance on the then unconfirmed and now completely discredited dossier.
I note that you did not take issue with the IG report, nor have you defended Comey’s truly incredible claim that he was not aware in early 2017 of who paid for the dossier.
I didn’t mention the dossier, and he most certainly did not say that there was no evidence of collusion.
I don’t know why you’re focusing on the dossier — well, I’m sure I do know — but I wasn’t.
From the Mueller report:
1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion
As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens
of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[ e ]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g. , Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or
theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (I 0th ed. 2014) ( collusion is “[ a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain
something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ
such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 352 180 U.S. Department of Justice
Atterttey Werk Pree1:1et // Ma,,· Cei~tttiH Material Preteetee Utteer Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e) ( 1897) (” An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms
of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.”).
For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office
considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 195l(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume 1, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law-including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are
discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either
under a specific statute or under Section 371 ‘s offenses clause. (end quote)
Let us reason together:
1) “The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts…”
2} ” as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.”
It follows then that finding no conspiracy is largely synonymous with finding no collusion.
Was it true or not? This “absence of malice” crap is no excuse for printing lies. Journalists should be very careful in their sources and verify the allegations before publishing. I can’t disagree enough with what these “journalists” did. Very bad decision. They should be arrested for defaming this man. Yahoo and Huffpost and this bolshie Isokoff should be forced to make a public apology and at the very least face a massive financial penalty and perhaps jail time 2-4 years would be appropriate to send a message to commie journalists…push lies and you go to jail
Lol. Another RW free speech activist.
Just making up jail sentences to send a message.
Not really the way someone who wants to live in a free republic operates.
Be a better advocate for liberty.
Look at Woodrow Wilson over here.