Joy Reid In Hot Water, Court Rules Against Her In Case Of False Reporting Against Trump Supporter
MSNBC's was just given a promotion despite her legal issues proving yet again that the mainstream media cares more about ratings than the truth. Reid will be moving from her janky weekend shows to a nightly show on the liberal media network. It's not all good news for Reid, however, since courts just found she is liable for a lawsuit after she published a fake story about a Trump supporter.
The suit and bogus reporting from Reid all circle around this photo:
Seen in the photo is Roslyn La Liberte wearing a MAGA hat having a civil debate with a 14-year-old boy at Simi Valley city council meeting in California. Despite how La Liberte may appear, the debate was no hostile- that was confirmed by people in attendance as well at the 14-year-old who rushed to the woman's defence after liberals put their'spin' on it.
The photo was shared on Twitter with caption that read, “‘You are going to be the first deported’ [and] ‘dirty Mexican’ [w]ere some of the things they yelled they yelled [sic] at this 14 year old boy. He was defending immigrants at a rally and was shouted down. Spread this far and wide this woman needs to be put on blast.”
Reid retweeted the post on June 29th adding her own spin:
"He showed up to a rally to defend immigrants . . . . She showed up too, in her MAGA hat, and screamed, “You are going to be the first deported” . . . “dirty Mexican!” He is 14 years old. She is an adult. Make the picture black and white and it could be the 1950s and the desegregation of a school. Hate is real, y’all. It hasn’t even really gone away."
Reid then published her warped version of the post again of Facebook and Instagram, just to make sure all of her followers saw it. She also included a photo of a desegregated school from 1957 to add flare. Reid then, again, added more caption this time that read:
"It was inevitable that this [juxtaposition] would be made. It’s also easy to look at old black and white photos and think: I can’t believe that person screaming at a child, with their face twisted in rage, is real. By [sic] every one of them were. History sometimes repeats. And it is full of rage. Hat tip to @joseiswriting. #regram #history #chooselove"
On Wednesday the 2nd Circut courts determined that La Liberte is a limited public figure. Meaning, if not for Reid's 'exposer', we would not know her name. La Liberte has lost clients because of Reid's actions and the courts decision leaves her vulnerable to a lawsuit. Court records show that as a private citizen, La Liberte only has to show that Reid was negligent:
"No one argues that La Liberte is an all-purpose public figure; the question is whether she became a limited purpose public figure with respect to California’s sanctuary-state law (SB 54), that is, did she “thrust [herself] to the forefront” of the controversy, “invite attention and comment[,] . . . [and] assume special prominence in [its] resolution.” Khawar v. Globe Int’l, Inc., 19 Cal. 4th 254, 263 (Cal. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345, 351 (1974)). The district court answered affirmatively because La Liberte “attended and spoke about SB 54 at multiple city council meetings” and “appeared in a photograph in the Washington Post about the SB 54 controversy” one month before the Simi Valley Council Meeting.
That is not nearly enough. Thin as the findings are to begin with, the district court did not take into account the requirement that a limited purpose public figure maintain “regular and continuing access to the media.” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 136 (1979). One reason for imposing the actual malice burden on public figures and limited purpose public figures is that “[t]hey have media access enabling them to effectively defend their reputations in the public arena.” Khawar, 19 Cal. 4th at 265 (citing Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344-45)…
La Liberte plainly lacked such media access. The earlier photograph, which showed her conversing, was in a Washington Post photo spread of attendees at an SB 54 protest. The article did not name La Liberte, let alone mention her views. The single caption described everyone depicted as “[s]upporters and opponents of [SB 54] rally[ing] and debat[ing] outside Los Alamitos City Hall.” (App. at 140-41.) Such incidental and anonymous treatment hardly bespeaks “regular and continuing access to the media.”…
True, La Liberte received media attention. Reid emphasizes that La Liberte appeared for a television interview after Vargas published his tweet but before Reid’s posts were published. However, media access that becomes available only “after and in response to” damaging publicity does not make someone a public figure. Khawar, 19 Cal. 4th at 266. By the time of the interview, the Photograph had gone viral, along with accusations that La Liberte had screamed vile racist remarks at a child. The interview was “only the media access that would likely be available to any private individual who found himself the subject of sensational and defamatory accusations.” Id. “If such access were sufficient . . . , any member of the media . . . could confer public figure status simply by publishing sensational defamatory accusations against any private individual.”…
Since La Liberte was not a limited purpose public figure, the district court erred by requiring her to allege actual malice, and her claim as to the June 29 Post
should not have been dismissed for failing to do so. On remand, the district court may assess whether La Liberte adequately alleged that Reid acted negligently with respect to that post, the standard for private-figure plaintiffs. See Khawar, 19 Cal. 4th at 274; Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal. 3d 711, 742 (Cal. 1989) (“[A] private person need prove only negligence (rather than malice) to recover for defamation.”)."
There is an interesting not on the court documents that reveal Reid likely knew the information she was sharing was fake: “The court reasoned that ‘it is plausible that [Reid] learned about the falsity of the content of the July 1 Post before publication,’ including by way of emails from La Liberte’s son.” This means La Liberte's son wrote Reid to correct her before she made the substantial posts on Facebook and Instagram some days after the original reshare on Twitter.