The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"If He Did Not Want to Be Called a 'Rioter,' Plaintiff Should Not Have Admitted … to 'Participation in … [a] Riot'"
Plus, the significance of omitting "IDK."
An excerpt from Hiles v. CNN, decided yesterday by Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen (E.D. Va.), where plaintiff sued for libel in a CNN article (read the whole opinion for more):
Factual Allegations …
Although Plaintiff is referred to as a "rioter" in the Article, he alleges that he was never charged with or accused of rioting at the U.S. Capitol. Plaintiff further quotes definitions of "riot" from Virginia and federal law and alleges that his activities do not meet these definitions. CNN had made distinctions between rioters and demonstrators in prior reports, including when covering the 2015 Baltimore riots, when CNN analyst Mark Lamont Hill pointed out that not all demonstrators present were rioters. Likewise, in April 2021, Schneider had published an article differentiating conspiracy cases brought against about 20 members of paramilitary groups from "hundreds of rioters facing trespassing charges."
The Article also omits certain matters…. [Among others,] [t]he Facebook post quoted by the Article … is accompanied by "an obviously tongue-in-cheek" caption, "Feelin cute … might start a revolution later. IDK – in Capitol Hill." … The Article … omits the phrase "IDK" (short for "I don't know") from the Facebook post….
The Virginia Fair Report Privilege …
"Virginia's fair report privilege protects the publication of 'accounts of public proceedings or reports'—for example, records of judicial proceedings." … Here, the challenged statements all derive from publicly available court materials in Plaintiff's criminal case and are substantially accurate and fair abridgements of those materials….
First, Plaintiff does not dispute that he initialed each page of and signed the Statement of Offense—indisputably a court record—which expressly describes "Jacob Hiles' Participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot." Thus, for all of his nuanced arguments about the meaning of the word "riot" and the alleged implications of CNN's report, the issue is ultimately simple: if he did not want to be called a "rioter," Plaintiff should not have admitted in a court proceeding to "Participation in … [a] Riot." The Court declines to find that the use of the term "rioter" in one instance in the article is an abuse of the fair report privilege, when the Plaintiff's own admission gathers all of his behavior under the heading of "Participation in … [a] riot." Rather, CNN's use of the term is a fair and substantially correct statement of the contents of the public record. See Lowery v. Stovall (4th Cir. 1996) ("Particularly galling is the situation where a criminal convicted on his own guilty plea seeks as a plaintiff in a subsequent civil action to claim redress based on a repudiation of the confession…. There should be an estoppel in such a case.")
Second, the Statement of Facts filed by the Government in Plaintiff's case—again, indisputably a court record—included the Facebook post at issue here, in which Plaintiff stated, "Feeling cute … might start a revolution later, IDK" with the geotag "in Capitol Hill." CNN included in the Article the following description of the
Facebook post as reported in the Statement of Facts:In selfies from January 6 found by the FBI on social media, Hiles wore a gaiter mask and ski goggles and a sweatshirt that said "F*ck Antifa." He had also posted on his Facebook page, "Feelin cute … might start a revolution later," tagging himself on Capitol Hill, according to documents supporting his arrest.
The only difference between the content of the Government record (and Plaintiff's own words) and the report in the Article is the omission of the term "IDK" (I don't know). This minor discrepancy is not sufficient to show that CNN abused the fair report privilege…. "As long as [Defendant's] representation of the report was substantially accurate, selective representation of the report's contents does not constitute abuse." … The phrase "IDK" serves the same function in the post as the word "might" and the term "feelin cute"—it tends to indicate that the poster may not be entirely serious about what he is saying. By retaining two of these softening terms, CNN's abridgement maintains the essence of both the content and tone of the post and is thus substantially accurate and a fair abridgement…. "[W]hile the news article was not exactly correct, it constituted no substantial departure from the language [in the source]." Therefore, the fair report privilege applies to the Article's reporting of the Facebook post….
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 appreciate the Court's effort to explain the significance (or lack thereof) of omitting "IDK," when it could have instead simply referred to the Popehat's Rule of Goats instead.
Not to be confused with Martial's rule of goats.
Hence inspired:
He cites an article of Volokh's
And brings in much extraneous bollocks
Yet left out from his copious notes,
"What happened to my client's goats?"
I still think the translation I put together the last time you posted about it is better (or at the very least, more faithful) than the others floating around:
Seems fair enough. Even if you were genuinely coerced into a guilty plea, and feel quite put upon and innocent, you can't expect the legal system to let you sue somebody for defamation for saying you're guilty of what you plead guilty to.
And the judge is a black woman appointed by Obama. Color me shocked.
How do you think a white man appointed by Trump (let's say) should decide the case, given Virginia's fair report privilege?
Participation in a riot does not make one a rioter. If I make pizza for a basketball game, does that make me a basketball player?
If I had made pizza for a basketball game, I doubt I would have signed a document stating my "participation ... in a basketball game."
Maybe, maybe not. My larger point is that participating in something doesn't make one that thing, and CNN defamed him by framing it that way.
My larger point is that participating in something doesn’t make one that thing
How does the fact that "rioter" is defined in ordinary English as: "a person who takes part in a riot" affect your analysis?
How does the fact that “rioter” is defined in ordinary English as: “a person who takes part in a riot” affect your analysis?
Someone less inclined toward superficial, simple-minded analysis than you are would likely pay some attention to the meaning of the “takes part in” portion of that definition. Is simply being in and amongst people who are engaging in riotous behavior “taking part” in that behavior? Or is your own behavior an essential element of that? Which of the behaviors described by the actual charge to which he pled guilty are riotous in nature?
Which of the behaviors described by the actual charge to which he pled guilty are riotous in nature?
He signed a document which he specifically agreed described his "Participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot".
It's nice you're trying to let him off by applying some very technical definition of riot. This is a defamation case. Riot has the ordinary, superficial even, meaning of everyday use. What would the reasonable person reading the article think they meant and does that align with what a reasonable person would think knowing the facts?
The answer here, where he signed a document which explicitly said it was describing his participation in a riot, is that the statement that he was a rioter matched the facts to which he attested. Good luck arguing to any court that you have admitted participating in a riot, but your participation wasn't sufficient that a news outlet could call you a rioter.
And what exactly were they threatening him with if he didn't sign? Seems a bit dishonest to completely ignore the duress component of every prosecution, especially those with ridiculous stacked charges.
How effortlessly some people switch from "enforce the rules ruthlessly against those people chanting against the killing of children and sitting in tents" to "why must there be consequences for insurrectionists who plead guilty with respect to attacking the Capitol because of the overwhelming evidence advanced by the prosecutors?"
Realistically? If subject to the same level of coercion, you almost certainly would.
Surely you're not under the illusion that plea agreements are entered into voluntarily, in any meaningful sense? They're obtained by threatening to ruin people with legal expenses, by over-charging so they face the risk of horrific penalties if they don't sign.
You've seen the statistics: At the federal level almost everybody signs. You don't really think that's because federal prosecutors are just that good at only going after the guilty, and persuading them to fess up in the interest of justice, do you?
So, faced with utter ruination if you didn't sign? Yeah, you'd sign.
The lesson for future defendants is to negotiate a plea deal using the title "tourism" instead of "riot".
I'm pretty sure a judge would reject a plea deal in which the defendant pled guilty to engaging in tourism, but, hey, it's worth a shot!
Or he could have participated in the right (left) kind of riots and be called a 'mostly peaceful protestor'.
As it is, he gets called a 'tourist' by the outraged right.
“start a revolution” seems a little abstract, especially if he’s being “cute”. I am assuming that quote is in the context of unlawful actions, which may or may not be any kind of “riot”. Sitting on some steps in civil disobedience and chanting something might be how one starts a revolution, while participating in something that isn’t a riot.
The bottom line here though is that he did admit as part of a court proceeding and judgement that he “participated in a riot”. Seems like he got bad legal advice. His attorney should have discussed the long-term ramifications of that plea. "You'll be forever known as a rioter, if you accept this. Can you deal with that?"
Seems like he got bad legal advice.
You think it's obvious from the facts that he wouldn't have ultimately been convicted and been given a harsher punishment if he hadn't signed the plea deal?
Just because he accepted a plea deal with long-term consequences does not mean, or even suggest, he got bad legal advice. He did, after all, post his participation from inside the Capitol, which pretty much guarantees he had committed a crime and would get convicted of something.
I think (a) the court got it right, and it isn't a close call;
(b) CNN's story was written to be sensational, in the tradition of yellow-dog journalism, and we should think less of them for publishing it; but
(c) it's kind of fun to see Twiqbal biting conservatives in the ass, since these cases are best-known for making employment discrimination claims difficult to get off the ground. Conservatives usually cheer for dismissals under Twiqbal.
Per the linked decision:
The plea agreement reflects that Plaintiff agreed to plead guilty to “Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building,” in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G)
40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2) is given the title, “Violent entry and disorderly conduct”, though most of the individual offenses listed under it are not inherently violent in nature, and not sort of violence is listed as a prerequisite for having committed most of the offences under that provision…especially (G), which is the specific offense to which he plead guilty. While there were activities going on that have been characterized as “rioting”, it does not appear that he plead guilty to anything that characterization would apply to.
"Plaintiff does not dispute that he initialed each page of and signed the Statement of Offense—indisputably a court record—which expressly describes "Jacob Hiles' Participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot."
Wuz has come up with a topical illustration of the fact that the heading does not always accurately describe the contents, even in so formal a legal document as the law itself.
Thus under the Violent heading you can be convicted of non violent things. That you did things that were not violent that were listed under the Violent heading, does not make the things you did, violent.
Likewise if we are told that Sarcastro failed to call the fire department when he looked out of his window and saw the house opposite on fire, under a heading “Sarcastro’s part in the arson at 1623 Oak Tree Lane” that doesn’t make Sarcastro an arsonist.
In this case obviously the Statement of Offense was written by the prosecution for political effect and it was offered to the perp on a take it or leave it basis. And he took it and so is required to take the consequences.
But as a matter of normal construction, as described above, it is not necessarily the case that the heading accurately describes the details. A heading that leads you to believe that X was violent, or Y participated in a riot, or Z was an arsonist may turn out on inspection of the details below, to be misleading.
If it were otherwise, the newspaper industry would long ago have gone the way of the Dodo.
He made a signed statement when he pled.
Has nothing to do with the black letter law.
Saying oh it’s all prosecutor lies and we should treat as having no truth value just not believing in our criminal justice institutions at all. I’m a big fan of criminal justice reform, but I’m not that radical.
Saying oh it’s all prosecutor lies and we should treat as having no truth value just not believing in our criminal justice institutions at all.
Not at all. We should be willing to examine the truth value of the heading in the Statement of Offense drafted by the prosecutors.
Which we can do by reading the judgement where we see an itemised description of the perp's behavior on the day, and the heading under which it was to be found.
And as it turns out nothing in the itemised details supports the idea that he participated in a riot. The heading is inaccurate and we know this because we can read the detail.
Should we be surprised and shocked ? No, partly because we know prosecutors have political objectives as well as legal ones. But also as I said if we can find inaccurate headings in the black letter law itself it can hardly be surprising if we find them in lesser legal documents. Especially since the heading is - in the criminal case - completely irrelevant. He's not charged with rioting. The heading is legally superfluous to the criminal case. It's just there for show.
Though it seems to be enough to nix his civil case.
The documents related to the criminal charges are here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/hiles-jacob
The "Statement of Offense" includes the word "riot".
Beyond the formalities, I think basic facts of January 6 are largely subject to judicial notice. Whether they meet a legal definition of riot is beside the point in this defamation case. "January 6 was a riot" is an opinion based on disclosed facts. All that needs to be proved by the defendant is Jacob Hiles' participation.
School Gaza Protesters:
Mostly peaceful
Good people on both sides
Legitimate political discourse
Tiny, helpless, non-violent, not-trained-in-military-combat Ashtray Babbitt
You are ignoring that people were arrested and will be charged at Columbia and other universities.
You are ignoring that no one had a problem with the fact of demonstrating on the Ellipse or in front of the Capitol, as opposed to violently forcing their way into the Capitol and forcing members of Congress to flee for their lives.
You are ignoring the J6 riot had the express purpose of stopping the peaceful transfer of power which threatens our entire system of government, while students protesting is not unusual and not the same sort of threat to the foundations of the country.
You are ignoring that people have condemned the violence and property destruction of students at universities.
Unless you are trying to skewer the far left fringes rather than most people who condemn J6 riots and rioters, the people you are implicitly charging with hypocrisy are not lauding the people who were arrested for violence or trespassing or destruction of property as heroes.
But you are one of those calling J6 rioters victims (and/or heroes). You are the person you are complaining about.
You've misunderstood me, NOVA. I'm applying some of the right's favorite, charming euphemisms for their own little protests to see how they fit
Ahh, yes. My apologies.