Tag: course

Gossip can be fun, but also unlawful?
By Ryan Long

Gossip can be fun, but also unlawful?

Recently, New York Times reporter Mr. Jacob Bernstein was overheard at a party calling Mrs. Melania Trump a “hooker.” Although he subsequently apologized, the legal question is what legal liability, if any, does either he or The New York Timeshave for his statement? In these times of fast and loose media stories, the question is timely for media professionals and consumers of news.

The First Amendment does not protect all speech. One category of unprotected speech is defamation, an actionable tort. In order to prove defamation, a plaintiff must generally show that an untrue statement was communicated about him or her, that the statement was false, and that such statement injured their reputation in the community. Proof of damage can include, but is not limited to, lost sales for a business. In the case of defamation per se, however, a plaintiff need not show damage because the statement in question is considered harmful on it’s face. Examples of defamation per se generally include calling someone a “bank robber,” a “prostitute,” or both.

Of course, context matters. Where the statements are made under the guise of parody or the words, when read in context, do no mean what they would otherwise mean in isolation, then there may be a potential defense against liability. Barring such context, however, legal liability generally exists. This is true even if you republish the defamatory statement or if the statement was made by one of your employees during the course and scope of their duties to you.

That being said, it is harder to prove defamation if you are a pubic figure. In such a case, you must show that the allegedly false statement was made with actual malice, which means that the person knew the statement to be untrue, or that the person made the statement with reckless disregard of whether the statement was true or false.

Under these guidelines, Mr. Bernstein’s recent statement would be considered defamatory per se. Needless to say, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim, so if he could proffer admissible evidence showing his statement to be true, then there would be no liability. Whether his apology absolves him of liability is another question. Defamation law varies by state. In all likelihood, the apology wouldn’t absolve him of liability, but it would be an issue for the jury to consider in determining the amount of compensatory or punitive damages.

Whether The New York Times could be held liable for Mr. Bernstein’s statement is unclear. To be liable, Mrs. Trump would need to show that Mr. Bernstein made the statement within the course and scope of his employment. Courts use various factors to determine this question. One factual issue would be whether Mr. Bernstein was attending the party on behalf of The New York Times, or in his personal capacity. If the former, liability will be more likely. If the latter, less likely, for The New York Times.

Media professionals are under immense pressure to get views of their content, and the quick way to do that is to run salacious eye-grabbing headlines. At the same time, the First Amendment’s protections are not infinite for media professionals. Finding the right balance between offering tantalizing news and also respecting the lines of defamation is a prudent course, but one that may be at risk of attack in today’s fast food news environment.

Dude, where’s my 1.2 billion?
By Ryan Long

Dude, where’s my 1.2 billion?

“Dude, where’s my car?” This was the famous question asked by the stoners in the 2000 movie called Dude, Where’s My Car?We ask the same question of Mr. Corzine: “Dude, where’s my $1.2 billion?” According to the USA Today, he recently testified that “I simply do not know where the money is” in front of Congress. Of course, this may be true. But the question is whether that will be enough to get him off the hook for civil and/or criminal claims that may arise from the downfall of MF Global.

Embezzlement is the first crime that comes to mind. In New York, there is no civil cause of action for embezzlement. But the state could bring a criminal case against Mr. Corzine if it could prove: (1) the $1.2 billion involved belonged to investors; (2) the money was converted or used for Mr. Corzine’s purposes; (3) Mr. Corzine was in a position of trust and possessed legal possession of (or access to) the money; and (4) the Mr. Corzine knowingly defrauded the owner of the property.

Of course, we don’t know the full factual picture of the situation with MF Global. But assume for the purpose of discussion that Mr. Corzine did not know where the money went, which roughly covers elements (2) and (4). Certainly some of his underlings knew. The issue in the case would then be whether their knowledge could, under the circumstances, be imputed to Mr. Corzine. After all, intent is generally a mental state that juries infer from the circumstances, since folks rarely state point blank: “now I know I am embezzling money and that what I am doing is illegal.” But it might be difficult to show that he knew or should have known what his underlings were doing, depending on how far down the totem pole they were and where the money ended up.

Regardless, it seems to run afoul of common sense that MF Global could not trace such a large amount of money as though they forgot in which parking spot they put the car at the shopping mall. Certainly, Mr. Corzine will face additional questioning from authorities. But what remains odd in the whole scenario is how they are approaching him with kid gloves. It seems if either dude in Dude, Where’s My Car? were overseeing an institution that misplaced such a large amount of money, they would likely be sitting in jail until the money was accounted for.

Mavericks with Money
By Ryan Long

Mavericks with Money

This is the first blog post on the new website of Ryan E. Long PLLC.   We hope you like the new site.    We sure do.  And that is thanks to Kevin Robbins of Ironclad360, L.L.C., an excellent New York based web design company.    We also hope you like our entries, which will cover thought provoking and/or inspiring stories we read about in the press or encounter in our practice.   One article that we saw which peaked our interest was  Mavericks with Medals on WSJ.com.

The reason why we liked the article is that we thought Mr. Sean White, the subject of the article, is a dying breed of American — independent, creative, and yet highly effective. Through his entrepreneurial zest, Mr. White was able to achieve success “his way.” Mr. Sinatra would be proud. But not only that. Mr. White’s different way of training, which shunned, to some extent, being cast with everyone else, enabled him to make moves nobody else ever saw before. Of course, there is no doubt that efficiencies of scale come about from mass production. And yet sometimes these efficiencies of scale from the Ford style mass production are made possible only be the likes of Mr. White. Take, for example, the Wright Brothers. They beat out the better funded Langley for the first to flight. We think what explains the Wright Brothers success is ingenuity, creativity, and, of course, persistence and bravery. We also think, too, that Mr. White shares these traits. Our clients do, too. Whether you are talking about music, fashion, technology, or hospitality, our clients are in the vanguard of their industries because of their tenacity and willingness to do what it takes to succeed. We applaud them. And we certainly applaud Mr. White.