The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justin Fairfax (Former Va. Lt. Gov.) Loses Libel Lawsuit Against N.Y. Public Radio
From Judge Anthony Trenga's decision today in Fairfax v. N.Y. Public Radio (E.D. Va.):
On August 6, 2021, NYPR aired a radio show named "The Takeaway" on the topic of "Politics, Power and Abuse" that featured a conversation between Vanessa Tyson, a professor of political science, and the show's host, Melissa Harris-Perry ("the Broadcast"). The Broadcast discussed the reactions to women who make allegations of sexual misconduct against individuals with political power and centered in part on the then-recent allegations against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. In 2019, Tyson had alleged on a national television show, broadcast by CBS, that Fairfax had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention. During the NYPR Broadcast, Harris-Perry referenced, and Tyson repeated her claim that Fairfax had sexually assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, as context for a discussion about how such allegations are treated by the media and the political establishment. Also broadcast during that NYPR radio show was a short, recorded audio clip from Meredith Watson, another woman who accused Fairfax of sexual assault during the 2019 CBS broadcast, in which she expressed how she felt about Fairfax's alleged conduct.
Based on the August 6 NYPR Broadcast, Fairfax has filed a two-count complaint against NYPR alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In support of the defamation claim, the Complaint alleges that NYPR failed to investigate Tyson and Watson's allegations made on the Broadcast. More specifically, Fairfax alleges that NYPR did not speak with or mention a publicly identified witness who Fairfax claims observed his entire sexual encounter with Watson in 2000 and who would confirm that the encounter was consensual. Fairfax also alleges that NYPR should have discussed a Washington Post editorial piece that detailed the steps Fairfax has taken to attempt to clear his name, such as taking and passing polygraph tests, and that NYPR further failed to reach out to Fairfax in a "reasonable amount of time" prior to the broadcast of the radio show, although the Complaint also states that Fairfax was contacted one day before the show and did not take the opportunity to comment….
The court concluded that the statements weren't libelous because NYPR simply reported on the allegations, rather than endorsing them:
The context for the relied upon references was "the news about Governor Andrew Cuomo, and to reflect on [Tyson's] own very public journey over the past several years." The Complaint itself makes clear that these allegations of sexual assault had previously been raised against Fairfax. The show's reference to his accusers' claims does not discuss the details of those accusations or endorse the veracity of those claims and was followed immediately by clear statements that Fairfax categorically denied the allegations. In sum, the Broadcast conveyed only the undisputed fact that Tyson and Watson made sexual abuse allegations against Fairfax and that Fairfax had categorically denied the allegations, without any opinion or suggestion by Harris-Perry that the allegations were true. For these reasons, the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that anything said by Harris-Perry constituted actionable factual and defamatory statements.
This is a minority view among American courts, I think; generally speaking, the so-called "Republication Rule" provides that repeating allegations—even if the repetition is accurate—can be actionable if the underlying allegations themselves are false. But the court also concluded that Fairfax hadn't sufficiently pleaded that NYPR knew the statements were false or likely false (i.e., spoke with so-called "actual malice"); and that strikes me as quite right:
[T]he Complaint fails to allege, as required, facts that show NYPR published the accusers' statements despite possession of actual knowledge that the statement was false or while harboring "a high degree of awareness of probable falsely." That standard requires "much more than a failure to exercise ordinary care" and "recklessness is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing." For these reasons, the Complaint's conclusory allegation, that NYPR knew of the purported witness or other relied upon information, even it accepted as a factual allegation, is insufficient to plausibly allege actual malice. St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) ("Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith."). Nor were NYPR and Perry obligated to include a detailed presentation of the "substantial information pointing to Fairfax's innocence and extraordinary efforts to clear his name." In sum, the factual allegations of the Complaint arguably allege, at best, a plausible negligent failure to investigate, not "the purposeful avoidance of the truth." For these reasons, Fairfax has failed to allege facts that make plausible that NYPR broadcast Tyson and Watson's allegations of sexual assault with actual malice.
{Nor does the Supreme Court's decision in Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989), referenced by the Fourth Circuit in CBS II, and relied upon by Fairfax, support Fairfax' position that the Complaint adequately alleges actual malice. In that case, the defamed public figure had provided recorded audio tapes of a third party witness to the defendant. Id. ("It is also undisputed that [plaintiff] made the tapes of the [witness] interview available to the Journal News and that no one at the newspaper took the time to listen to them.") These recordings also partially contradicted the substance of the disputed remarks in the case. Id. ("[O]ne might reasonably infer in light of this broader context that the decision not to listen to the tapes was motivated by a concern that they would raise additional doubts concerning [the third-party accuser's] veracity.") The journalists in Harte-Hanks had also been instructed to interview everyone who was a key witness in the case but failed to interview an eyewitness who was known to the journalists. The Supreme Court was satisfied that the totality of these facts sufficiently demonstrated "a deliberate decision not to acquire knowledge of facts that might confirm the probable falsity" of the defamatory allegations.
Here, there is no allegation that Fairfax informed New York Public Radio about the third-party witness, nor has Fairfax made other factual allegations from which to reasonably infer that NYPR knew the allegations of sexual misconduct were false or that NYPR recklessly disregarded whether or not the allegations were false. In fact, unlike the plaintiff in Harte-Hanks, the Complaint makes clear that Fairfax did not communicate any information to NYPR about any eyewitness or his accusers, even though he was asked to comment before the broadcast.}
The court also concluded that, under the Virginia anti-SLAPP statute, Fairfax had to pay NYPR's attorney fees, because "Fairfax's action against NYPR was meritless, unreasonable, and without any substantial basis in law or fact, and motivated by reasons other than obtaining relief against NYPR based on a good faith, fact based belief that it had made actionable defamatory statements against him."
Congratulations to Andrew Marc Levine, Jared Ian Kagan & Jonathan Rosser Tuttle, who represent NYPR.
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
Justin Fairfax?? was he the one who wore Blackface, or couldn’t remember if he was the one wearing Blackface, or the one next to the guy wearing Blackface. Or the even bigger crime against Humanity, owning a 70’s Corvette with Rainbow Glitter Trim (didn’t mean the same thing in the 70’s(Just meant you were a Dork) and an automatic transmission.
Or was he the guy who advocated 3rd Trimester Abortions,
Oh wait, that was the guy who got to serve out his term…
Frank
That would have been Ralph “Norton” (SWAK sewer workers are kings) Northam, former governor of VA.
One of Eddie Murphy’s funniest bits, that he couldn’t do today ( OK, he could, Eddie don’t give a fuck)
Can’t find the Video (I wonder why?)
so here’s Eddie “Raw” Circa 1987 from the “Felt Forum” at MSG
“You know who’d be funny faggots? Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton. Wouldn’t they be funny faggots? Yeah, Ralph Kramden would be leaning out the window there, saying, “Norton! Norton, pal, c’mon down, I wanna show you something!” “Hey there, Ralphie boy, what do ya say there, pal o’ mine?” “You know, Norton, I been watchin’ you. And I know you been watchin’ me. You watch me, I know.” “So Ralph, what’re ya gettin’ at?” “Norton, my friend, how would you like to fuck me up the ass? I know you wanna fuck me, Norton. And you know that I know that you know that I know that you wanna fuck me. Now, I’m gonna bend over, and when I do, start fuckin’! Here I go…” [bends over and groans and stammers] “Way to go there, Ralphie boy.”
Those were the days, and then he started doing those awful Nutty Professor movies..
Frank
These are the readers Prof. Volokh cultivates.
These are the comments he invites and incites.
These are the reasons UCLA would eagerly fund his moving vans, and throw in gas money and VIP tickets to tour the Confederate monument of his choice.
That Eddie Murphy bit hit a little to “Close to Home” Rev???
Wikipedia: “Justin Edward Fairfax (born February 17, 1979) is an American lawyer and politician who served as the 41st lieutenant governor of Virginia from 2018 to 2022. A member of the Democratic Party , he is the second African-American elected statewide in Virginia, following Douglas Wilder .”
So his blackface isn’t painted on.
Just googled him, according to the Photo Fairfax is still wearing Blackface, (in this day and age!). Good luck getting him to pay the judgement.
“Justin Fairfax?? was he the one who wore Blackface, or couldn’t remember if he was the one wearing Blackface, or the one next to the guy wearing Blackface.”
He was in between two guys wearing blackface. They wanted to cancel Ralph Northam for either wearing blackface or dressing like a klansman, but Fairfax was next in line and a me-too allegation surfaced.
Then it turned out that the third guy in line had a blackface problem too, so they said fuck it and kept Northam.
The real reason they kept two blackface guys and a credibly accused serial rapist is that the fourth guy in line was a Republican.
Is “Frank Drackman” TiP’s account? Is “TiP” Frank Drackman’s account? Are they just two people who came up with the same Sick Burn? Who knows? Who cares? Let’s watch and see…
Anything interesting occur in New York today?
Any important defamation developments in Delaware?
Any Florida-style censorship activity?
None of that seems “interesting” to the Volokh Conspiracy, for some reason.
Or reasons.
Carry on, clingers — without the respect of the modern American mainstream.
Yeah, the Manhattan DA doing a shitty Stepin Fetchit imitation, and hey, I’ve been wrong about Affirmative Action all these years, how did Barry Hussein not appoint him (Bragg, not Stepin Fetchit, although if he was still alive, Stepin would be a better choice) instead of that Waterhead Merrick Garland??
And if the “American Main Stream” includes Jerry Sandusky, I believe I’ll stay in the backwaters (I’ll give you that much, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
is.. um actually you’re more in the “Backwaters” than I am)
Frank
I saw Stormy Daniels got hit with another round of six-figure attorneys fees. Is that what you’re referencing?
The Volokh Conspiracy’s right-wing law professors thank you for your comment, because they didn’t have the balls to write that for themselves.
If only Fairfax had access to a large trove of emails establishing that the reporters and management of NYPR thought the allegations were false but chose to air them anyway to get ratings.
Of course, even then, there would be that pesky detail of proving the allegations were false. But since this was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court doesn’t even have to decide that – it can *assume* that the allegations are false and then find for the defendant anyway.
SLAPP is just icing on the cake. Put a tick in column of free speech.
The just sayin’ defense prevails again.
Reporter: A claims B did C, oh my!
B: why the hell are you repeating lies about me on your show?
Reporter: I was just sayin’
Judge: Okey dokey, none of that actual malice stuff.
“. . . Tyson repeated her claim that Fairfax had sexually assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. . . . ”
Why didn’t Nunes sue Tyson since she’s the one actually making the allegation – not NYPR.
Sure, NYPR was interviewing her but it wasn’t NYPR making the claim.
Deep pockets?
Or perhaps discovery…
I’m just here to watch the usual morons sputter and wheeze over how this is exactly like the Dominion suit but so much worse, and how double-plus SO UNFAIR it is that NYPR isn’t going to be shuttered and all it’s personnel shipped off to Guantanamo.