No, it's actually a fact that Veritas is deceptive. They have been caught in the act of attempting to deceive multiple times. At some point you lose the benefit of the doubt with regards to your credibility.
Argument 1) This isn't libel because it's true, and
Argument 2) This isn't libel because we're allowed to lie to our readership.
Argument 1 causes you no reputational harm. Arguement 2 is an announcement to the world that you've abdicated all journalistic integrity.
Do you make argument 2 if you're confident in argument 1?
Regardless, argument 1 must not be bullet proof, because their motion to dismiss was rejected and the suit is moving forward.
This shows a misunderstanding of what the motion to dismiss adjudicates. Argument 1 cannot win on a motion to dismiss, because it's an argument over the facts.
Argument 1 is absolutely irrelevant in a motion to dismiss. Argument 2 is the only argument you can raise in a motion to dismiss.
At the motion to dismiss stage you are only arguing questions of the law. You assume the facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the complaint, and then state that given those facts there is still no legal issue that can be remedied.
If argument 2 works for purposes of a quick motion to dismiss, and argument 1 requires discovery and possibly a trial, you’ll make argument 2 first, and if that fails, mount the much more expensive side defense based on argument 1.
Argument 1) I didn't do what you're accusing me of, or
Argument 2) What you're accusing me of isn't illegal
If you can establish the second one, I don't see why you wouldn't. It seems like it would save you a bunch of effort for this and any future cases.
> The New York Times also attempted a Hail Mary claim that Project Veritas was “libel proof.” We have previously discussed such claims as very hard to establish. The court correctly and quickly dispensed with that claim by the New York Times.
Fox News also did the exact same thing on a similar lawsuit. It was used as a "gotcha" moment, but it still wasn't very meaningful.
> the NYT argued in front of a judge that what is on its front page should be understood to be opinion and not fact, even when it appears in the form of facts
That's a comment about the defamation case. The NYT was arguing the bounds of its 1A rights before the judge. When the person responded talking about the NYT arguing it's 1A rights, that's what they were talking about.
Then you asked what your comment had anything do to with 1A rights, and I pointed out that a comment about the defamation case is inherently about 1A rights.
So...it doesn't really matter that your commend had nothing to do with Project Veritas because the rest of the comment chain in response also has nothing to do with it.
You can say your comment wasn't about that topic if you want, but it's just doesn't seem accurate to me. I'm not "gishgalloping", I'm just explaining to you why people are reacting as if you commented on the defamation case.
Anyway, I think we're way out in the weeds and this discussion probably isn't productive so I'll drop it. I'm sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say.