Topic: Actual Malice

Attorney Viva Frei joins the program to discuss the "insanity" of defaulting defendants into liability findings. He argues that bypassing the requirement to prove actual malice or defamation elements effectively turns the judicial system into a lottery for plaintiffs. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene is described as a ratification of injustice that sets a dangerous precedent for all political opponents.

The discussion covers how judges in the Texas and Connecticut trials suppressed evidence of apologies and retractions, forcing a "show trial" on damages only. A comparison is made to Judge Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case, where the judge allegedly manufactured a finding of rape despite a jury verdict form stating otherwise. This is framed as a method for activist judges to create media narratives against political targets.

Norm Pattis analyzes Judge Jed Rakoff’s decision to dismiss Sarah Palin’s libel case against the New York Times while the jury was still deliberating. They discuss the "actual malice" standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan and the emerging double standard between corporate media and citizen bloggers. Pattis argues that the First Amendment is being undermined by penalizing individuals for speaking their minds.

Barnes and Viva Frei criticize mainstream media outlets like NBC and CNN for misrepresenting the default judgment as a substantive loss on the merits. They argue that the courts are afraid of an Austin jury hearing the actual facts of the case, leading to a rigged legal process.

James O'Keefe discusses the significance of the court ruling, which allows Project Veritas to conduct videotaped depositions of New York Times reporters Maggie Astor and Tiffany Hsu. O'Keefe explains the "actual malice" standard and his intent to expose the internal newsroom practices of the Times. He claims the Times's defense relies on the idea that their news reporting is "unverifiable opinion."