The Right-Wing Plot to 'Murder' Free Speech

00:43:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb_RBDmReR4

摘要

TLDRThe podcast discusses the implications of the New York Times v. Sullivan case and its critical role in protecting the freedom of the press in the U.S. The ruling established an 'actual malice' standard, thus enabling journalists to report on public figures without the fear of unwarranted legal action. However, recent coordinated legal efforts, particularly funded by wealthy individuals, threaten to undermine these protections, which could chill journalistic inquiry and critical reporting. The conversation also highlights how this affects independent journalists, the changing landscape of media, and the importance of remaining vigilant in safeguarding free speech and accountability in journalism.

心得

  • 📜 The New York Times v. Sullivan case protected journalism.
  • 💰 Wealthy individuals are funding lawsuits to silence media.
  • ⚖️ The 'actual malice' standard sets a high bar for defamation cases.
  • 📉 Independent journalists face significant legal threats.
  • 🔍 Recent legal campaigns aim to overturn Sullivan's protections.
  • 🤔 Community and local news are increasingly vulnerable.
  • 📈 Understanding these legal battles is crucial for democracy.
  • 💪 Anti-SLAPP laws help protect free speech.
  • 👀 The current Supreme Court may affect these legal standards.
  • 📰 The media must strive for transparency and accountability.

时间轴

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    The discussion begins by addressing how financial power can influence and potentially bankrupt journalists and news outlets, particularly those challenging political narratives. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan from 1964 established crucial protections for free press and journalism by safeguarding them against malicious defamation lawsuits, paving the way for greater scrutiny of public officials without fear of legal repercussions.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    The case origins are elaborated through the wrongful accusations against New York Times by Montgomery Commissioner L.B. Sullivan regarding a misleading advertisement concerning civil rights. Though the ad contained some inaccuracies, the Supreme Court's ruling reinforced the need for media to report on public interests freely, establishing the 'actual malice' standard that protects journalists from frivolous lawsuits by public figures.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    Before the Sullivan ruling, journalism was often limited to merely relaying information from authorities, resembling stenography, and covered civil rights issues with hesitance. Post-Sullivan, media outlets gained the freedom to critically investigate and expose significant national issues, altering the journalism landscape through impactful investigations into events like Watergate and the Vietnam War.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    In a world without Sullivan, journalists would face increased risks of intimidation and legal threats, potentially leading to self-censorship. Local journalists and independent outlets, already facing their own challenges, would be particularly vulnerable and unable to aggressively hold power to account, especially without financial resources to defend against legal battles.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Attention is shifted to modern attempts to dismantle the protections established by Sullivan, highlighting cases such as the Gawker lawsuit funded by billionaire Peter Thiel as a significant warning sign. It exemplified how wealthy individuals can leverage legal strategies to silence press criticism and establish dangerous precedents for future media operations.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    The conversation then highlights the rise of anti-media sentiments, particularly in the Trump era, which further complicates the media landscape. The usage of coordinated legal harassment against journalists aims to discredit their credibility, demonstrating a systematic effort to weaken free speech rights in favor of shielding powerful interests from accountability.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    Thiel's legal team successfully destroyed Gawker, a pivotal media outlet of its time, thereby marking a trend where money can be used effectively to suppress unflattering reporting. Lawyers like Tom Clare and Libby Locke emerged as formidable figures in anti-media litigation, effectively wielding legal power against critical journalism and influencing the atmosphere further for independent reporters and local outlets.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:43:37

    Finally, the discussion emphasizes the current struggles of independent journalists and the challenges posed by ongoing legal threats. The urgency for community members to understand and engage with these issues becomes clear, as does the need for supportive measures and an active defense of journalistic integrity, ensuring transparency and accountability remain intact.

显示更多

思维导图

视频问答

  • What is New York Times v. Sullivan?

    It is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the right to free press by protecting the media from defamation lawsuits unless actual malice is proven.

  • What is the 'actual malice' standard?

    It's the legal standard for public officials to win a defamation case, requiring proof that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

  • What recent legal efforts threaten Sullivan?

    There has been a coordinated campaign over the last 15 years to challenge the protections established in Sullivan through various lawsuits.

  • How does this impact independent journalists?

    Independent journalists are particularly vulnerable to lawsuits, which can threaten their ability to report freely.

  • How has the landscape of journalism changed since Sullivan?

    Before Sullivan, journalists mostly acted as government mouthpieces; after, they gained protections to investigate and criticize power.

  • What is the concern regarding the current Supreme Court?

    There are worries that the current makeup of the Supreme Court may chip away at the protections established by Sullivan.

  • What role do anti-SLAPP laws play?

    Anti-SLAPP laws help dismiss lawsuits intended to silence free speech, but they may not deter wealthy individuals from filing frivolous lawsuits.

  • Can the media patrol its accountability?

    Yes, there is an argument for more transparency and accountability within media, but external pressures can complicate this.

  • What can average people do to support free press?

    Educating themselves about these issues and understanding the coordinated threats against the media.

  • What has been the impact of the Gawker lawsuit?

    The Gawker lawsuit illustrates how wealthy individuals can leverage legal systems to silence and bankrupt media outlets.

查看更多视频摘要

即时访问由人工智能支持的免费 YouTube 视频摘要！
字幕
en
自动滚动:
  • 00:00:00
    it was a crucial moment because it
  • 00:00:01
    showed the whole world that if you have
  • 00:00:03
    enough money and you have some patience
  • 00:00:05
    here is a strategy that you can
  • 00:00:08
    replicate to try and bankrupt news
  • 00:00:10
    outlets or journalists that are going to
  • 00:00:11
    question the party
  • 00:00:15
    line back in 1964 the Supreme Court
  • 00:00:18
    issued a landmark ruling in a case
  • 00:00:20
    called New York Times V Sullivan the
  • 00:00:22
    Court's decision established the right
  • 00:00:24
    to a free press by protecting the media
  • 00:00:26
    against erroneous lawsuits that ruling
  • 00:00:28
    has been instrumental in allowing
  • 00:00:30
    journalists to scrutinize public figures
  • 00:00:32
    powerful corporations and hold political
  • 00:00:34
    leaders to account without fear of undue
  • 00:00:36
    litigation but the landmark decision is
  • 00:00:38
    now in Jeopardy thanks to a coordinated
  • 00:00:41
    legal effort that's been decades in the
  • 00:00:42
    making New York Times journalist David
  • 00:00:44
    enr's new book murder the truth
  • 00:00:47
    documents This legal Crusade and exposes
  • 00:00:49
    how this movement threatens the very
  • 00:00:51
    Foundation of our Free Press and
  • 00:00:52
    democracy today he joins me to dig into
  • 00:00:55
    the origins of this legal assault on
  • 00:00:56
    Sullivan its implications for journalism
  • 00:00:59
    in both old and New Media and what it
  • 00:01:01
    all means for the future of free speech
  • 00:01:03
    in America David welcome to power user
  • 00:01:06
    thanks for having me so I want to start
  • 00:01:07
    by first of all explaining what New York
  • 00:01:09
    Times or Sullivan is can you explain
  • 00:01:11
    what was this case and how did it
  • 00:01:13
    transform the Press landscape in the
  • 00:01:15
    United States back in the 60s basically
  • 00:01:17
    in 1960 The New York Times ran a full-
  • 00:01:20
    page ad uh paid for by supporters of
  • 00:01:23
    Martin Luther and the ad in this kind of
  • 00:01:25
    like fine print delved into some of the
  • 00:01:29
    racist Abus is being perpetrated by
  • 00:01:31
    Southern officials who were really
  • 00:01:34
    trying to preserve white supremacy in
  • 00:01:36
    the South and the gist of the ad was
  • 00:01:38
    completely true uh and Southern
  • 00:01:40
    officials were trying to preserve white
  • 00:01:41
    supremacy and they were racist and they
  • 00:01:43
    were pursuing these kind of violent
  • 00:01:45
    stalinist tactics but some of the a
  • 00:01:47
    couple of the details in the ad were
  • 00:01:49
    either wrong or exaggerated so a guy
  • 00:01:52
    named lb Sullivan who at the time was uh
  • 00:01:55
    a Montgomery Alabama uh commissioner who
  • 00:01:58
    was in charge of the Police Department
  • 00:02:00
    among other things he filed a lawsuit
  • 00:02:02
    against the times accusing the times in
  • 00:02:04
    this ad of having defamed him now suvin
  • 00:02:07
    wasn't actually named in the ad but the
  • 00:02:09
    Montgomery Police Department was
  • 00:02:11
    mentioned as one of the kind of
  • 00:02:13
    Institutions that was involved in racist
  • 00:02:16
    voter suppression and trying to
  • 00:02:17
    undermine the Civil Rights Movement so
  • 00:02:19
    he filed this lawsuit it was heard in a
  • 00:02:22
    case where the judge was also a white
  • 00:02:24
    supremacist and so you will maybe not be
  • 00:02:27
    surprised to hear that the jury very
  • 00:02:28
    quickly sided with suvan and against the
  • 00:02:31
    New York Times and the verdict was a
  • 00:02:33
    real kind of like shot across the bow of
  • 00:02:34
    not only the times but a lot of other
  • 00:02:36
    national news outlets as well because
  • 00:02:38
    both Sullivan and his peers started
  • 00:02:40
    using lawsuits like this not because
  • 00:02:42
    their reputations have been damaged but
  • 00:02:44
    because they saw the lawsuits as a way
  • 00:02:46
    to basically intimidate news outlets and
  • 00:02:48
    to get them to stop covering the Civil
  • 00:02:50
    Rights Movement as aggressively as they
  • 00:02:51
    had and so like the times responded to
  • 00:02:54
    this by pulling its reporters out of
  • 00:02:55
    Alabama and discouraging them from
  • 00:02:57
    writing about things like institutional
  • 00:02:59
    racism suit anyway the times appealed it
  • 00:03:01
    lost the appeal at the state supreme
  • 00:03:03
    court in Alabama and then it appealed to
  • 00:03:05
    the US Supreme Court and in 1964 the
  • 00:03:07
    Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
  • 00:03:10
    and they reached a unanimous decision
  • 00:03:12
    which was really a kind of watershed
  • 00:03:14
    moment in not only for the Civil Rights
  • 00:03:16
    Movement but for freedom of speech and
  • 00:03:18
    freedom of the press in the US and what
  • 00:03:20
    they ruled was that in matters of public
  • 00:03:23
    urgency especially concerning public
  • 00:03:25
    officials so like elected leaders the
  • 00:03:27
    media and the public need to have some
  • 00:03:29
    breathing room so that if they get a
  • 00:03:31
    fact or two wrong by mistake in the
  • 00:03:33
    course of reporting a story they are not
  • 00:03:35
    worried that they are going to be kind
  • 00:03:36
    of sued into Oblivion and so they the
  • 00:03:39
    Supreme Court created this standard
  • 00:03:40
    which has come to be known as the actual
  • 00:03:41
    malice standard which says that if
  • 00:03:43
    you're a public official or a public
  • 00:03:45
    figure bringing a defamation suit the
  • 00:03:48
    only way you can win is if you establish
  • 00:03:50
    not only that you were uh defamed and
  • 00:03:53
    not only that the facts were wrong but
  • 00:03:55
    also that the person who wrote these
  • 00:03:56
    things either knew that what they were
  • 00:03:58
    writing was false so in other words they
  • 00:04:00
    lied or acted with Reckless disregard
  • 00:04:03
    for the accuracy so the effect of this
  • 00:04:05
    was to give just a lot of protection to
  • 00:04:08
    news outlets and just members of the
  • 00:04:10
    public who wanted to investigate or
  • 00:04:12
    scrutinize or criticize what powerful
  • 00:04:15
    people or institutions were doing and
  • 00:04:18
    yeah this was a really huge moment that
  • 00:04:21
    changed the nature of Journalism going
  • 00:04:23
    forward it's not a coincidence that this
  • 00:04:25
    case was decided in 1964 and you went on
  • 00:04:27
    to have journalists and news outlets
  • 00:04:29
    playing really decisive roles in
  • 00:04:32
    exposing the lies underpinning the
  • 00:04:34
    Vietnam War Watergate things like that
  • 00:04:37
    and it really a lot of those things
  • 00:04:39
    would not have been possible if
  • 00:04:40
    journalists and news outlets had to
  • 00:04:43
    worry that if they got a fact or two
  • 00:04:44
    wrong by mistake in good faith that the
  • 00:04:47
    consequence of that would have been
  • 00:04:48
    potentially you know litigation that
  • 00:04:51
    could have shut them down can you talk a
  • 00:04:52
    little bit more about just what the
  • 00:04:54
    journalism landscape was like before
  • 00:04:56
    this ruling and what it was like after
  • 00:04:57
    you mentioned some of these like big
  • 00:04:59
    stories that were able to be broken
  • 00:05:01
    because of this ruling what would a
  • 00:05:03
    world without Sullivan be like a lot of
  • 00:05:05
    journalists I think regarded the role
  • 00:05:07
    they played prior to Sullivan and prior
  • 00:05:09
    to huge journalistic breakthroughs like
  • 00:05:11
    Vietnam and like Watergate it kind of is
  • 00:05:13
    akin to stenographers they were there to
  • 00:05:16
    provide to be kind of a mouthpiece for
  • 00:05:18
    government officials and there were some
  • 00:05:20
    there are plenty of exceptions to that
  • 00:05:21
    and I think the emerging role that media
  • 00:05:23
    was starting to play in covering the
  • 00:05:24
    Civil Rights Movement show was the
  • 00:05:27
    exception that kind of proved that rule
  • 00:05:28
    and the media was trying def finded its
  • 00:05:30
    footing in a world where there were a
  • 00:05:32
    lot of lies and a lot of really high
  • 00:05:34
    stakes but those efforts were being and
  • 00:05:37
    met at every turn with kind of a furious
  • 00:05:39
    legal response that was really impaired
  • 00:05:42
    their ability to aggressively cover
  • 00:05:44
    things and so I think a world without
  • 00:05:46
    Sullivan would be a world in which
  • 00:05:48
    everyone is worried about their ability
  • 00:05:51
    to speak truth to power and to write
  • 00:05:53
    things openly and at times critically
  • 00:05:57
    about anyone in our society and our
  • 00:05:59
    economy who has a lot of power whether
  • 00:06:01
    that's the president of the United
  • 00:06:02
    States or like a local real estate
  • 00:06:04
    developer in your town as part of the
  • 00:06:06
    reporting for this book I saw this
  • 00:06:07
    happening time and time again throughout
  • 00:06:09
    the country where even with Sullivan and
  • 00:06:13
    especially local journalists independent
  • 00:06:15
    journalists uh Community news outlets
  • 00:06:17
    are getting threatened or sued uh in
  • 00:06:21
    ways that really jeopardize their
  • 00:06:24
    stability and that's even that's in a
  • 00:06:25
    world where we do have these solent
  • 00:06:27
    Productions and I think it would just
  • 00:06:28
    become IM me ably worse and much easier
  • 00:06:31
    to bully and intimidate journalists if
  • 00:06:34
    you were to roll back some of these
  • 00:06:35
    protections yeah it seems like the
  • 00:06:37
    effort to really dismantle this ruling
  • 00:06:40
    has accelerated in the past 15 years
  • 00:06:42
    obviously you talk about sort of
  • 00:06:43
    Clarence Thomas and like his origins of
  • 00:06:46
    hating the media and all of this stuff
  • 00:06:48
    but you talk about The Gawker lawsuit uh
  • 00:06:50
    that Peter teal funded as this like
  • 00:06:52
    moment and there's this guy sort of uh
  • 00:06:54
    Charles Harter who starts to develop
  • 00:06:57
    this kind of new strategy against the
  • 00:06:59
    Press can can you talk about why that
  • 00:07:00
    was such a pivotal moment and and what
  • 00:07:02
    It ultimately did do people still
  • 00:07:03
    remember Gawker I don't even know I
  • 00:07:06
    obviously do but I feel like some of the
  • 00:07:08
    Zoomers that listen might not remember
  • 00:07:10
    but it was an iconic blog yeah it was
  • 00:07:12
    iconic and just its whole MMO was to
  • 00:07:15
    offend people and it was doing a
  • 00:07:16
    combination of just like pure snark and
  • 00:07:20
    some like kind of racy stuff but also
  • 00:07:22
    just like really pure accountability
  • 00:07:23
    journalism and one of the reasons that
  • 00:07:25
    Peter teal the tech billionaire hated it
  • 00:07:27
    so much was that they they were
  • 00:07:29
    pioneering at the time this kind of very
  • 00:07:32
    aggressive in- yourface style of
  • 00:07:34
    coverage of Silicon Valley that Silicon
  • 00:07:36
    Valley people like Peter CH were just
  • 00:07:37
    not accustomed to they were accustomed
  • 00:07:39
    to journalists writing these fawning
  • 00:07:41
    pieces kind of marveling at their latest
  • 00:07:43
    like whizbang inventions and Gawker was
  • 00:07:46
    just like to use a British expression
  • 00:07:48
    just like taking the piss and they were
  • 00:07:50
    making fun of them and they were digging
  • 00:07:51
    into their finances and exposing like
  • 00:07:53
    when Peter Teal's hedge funds would were
  • 00:07:55
    suffering losses writing about that or
  • 00:07:57
    writing about some of the kind of crazy
  • 00:07:59
    Fringe theories that seem to animate
  • 00:08:02
    Peter teal so teal set out on this
  • 00:08:04
    secret mission to kill Gawker and he
  • 00:08:07
    hired uh a a young man to kind of
  • 00:08:10
    Mastermind this the young man hired
  • 00:08:12
    Charles Harter who at the time was a
  • 00:08:14
    kind of uh not very prominent Hollywood
  • 00:08:17
    lawyer and they spent years like
  • 00:08:19
    scouring the landscape and digging into
  • 00:08:21
    Gawker trying to find some legal weak
  • 00:08:24
    spots that they could use to try and
  • 00:08:25
    either or destroy the website
  • 00:08:28
    and eventually
  • 00:08:30
    came across Hulk Hogan gaard published a
  • 00:08:32
    snippet of a sex tape involving Hulk
  • 00:08:35
    Hogan Charles Harter and his team
  • 00:08:37
    volunteered to help with the lawsuit and
  • 00:08:40
    and hard and harder at this point he
  • 00:08:42
    knew he was working for some billionaire
  • 00:08:43
    but he claims not to have even realized
  • 00:08:45
    he's working for Peter teal Hulk Hogan
  • 00:08:47
    certainly didn't know he was in bed with
  • 00:08:48
    Peter teal Hulk Hogan filed a lawsuit
  • 00:08:50
    against Gawker uh alleging that his
  • 00:08:54
    privacy had been violated this went to
  • 00:08:55
    trial in Florida in 2016 and and the
  • 00:09:00
    jury returned a verdict against Gawker
  • 00:09:02
    that would have been really bad for
  • 00:09:04
    Gawker but it would became even worse
  • 00:09:06
    because Teal's team had figured out all
  • 00:09:09
    these legal inin and outs that basically
  • 00:09:11
    handcuffed Gawker and basically made it
  • 00:09:14
    so that Gawker could not appeal the case
  • 00:09:16
    effectively and that was the end of
  • 00:09:18
    Gawker that's why a lot of people have
  • 00:09:20
    not even heard of Gawker today because
  • 00:09:21
    it ceased to exist and that that court
  • 00:09:24
    case and that masterminding of it by
  • 00:09:27
    Peter teal and his colleagues was really
  • 00:09:30
    it was a crucial moment because it
  • 00:09:31
    showed the whole world that if you have
  • 00:09:33
    enough money and you have some patience
  • 00:09:36
    here is a strategy that you can
  • 00:09:38
    replicate to try to shut down criticism
  • 00:09:41
    and to try and bankrupt news outlets or
  • 00:09:44
    journalists that are going to question
  • 00:09:46
    the party line I think that's why a lot
  • 00:09:47
    of journalists even if they didn't
  • 00:09:49
    really like Gawker and thought Gawker is
  • 00:09:50
    pushing the envelope which it certainly
  • 00:09:52
    was still viewed this as a pretty
  • 00:09:56
    surprising and kind of unusual and
  • 00:09:58
    disturbing uh precedent because it
  • 00:10:00
    really showcased the ability of a
  • 00:10:01
    billionaire like Peter teal to uh just
  • 00:10:05
    essentially create the truth or kill
  • 00:10:07
    those who are pedaling a different
  • 00:10:08
    version of the truth and I mean all of
  • 00:10:10
    this happened of course I think this was
  • 00:10:12
    around like 2015 and 2016 is of course
  • 00:10:15
    when we saw the rise of trump like it
  • 00:10:16
    sort of aligned with this rise of trump
  • 00:10:18
    and also his rhetoric against the media
  • 00:10:21
    um and then harder I think you wrote
  • 00:10:23
    also eventually ended up to do a bunch
  • 00:10:24
    of work for the Trump family one other
  • 00:10:26
    sort of I guess group of lawyers that
  • 00:10:28
    was watching this very closely it was
  • 00:10:30
    really just two of them right yeah Tom
  • 00:10:32
    CLA and Libby lock Tom CLA and Libby
  • 00:10:34
    lock and um I think at that point they
  • 00:10:37
    were still at their Old Law Firm but
  • 00:10:38
    they were kind of watching this happen
  • 00:10:40
    and Clare lock for any journalists that
  • 00:10:41
    know that have ever reported critically
  • 00:10:44
    on Silicon Valley or anyone else I don't
  • 00:10:45
    know I've certainly dealt with their
  • 00:10:47
    threats I feel like they are notorious
  • 00:10:49
    like anti-media lawyers and they've
  • 00:10:51
    really established themselves in the
  • 00:10:52
    space so can you talk about their origin
  • 00:10:54
    story and how they kind of I feel like
  • 00:10:56
    they took this like what what was done
  • 00:10:58
    to Gawker and like put it on steroids I
  • 00:11:00
    I mean I totally agree with that and
  • 00:11:02
    they haven't had as much success as
  • 00:11:05
    Charles Harter had with gaer but it's
  • 00:11:06
    not for lack of trying so basically they
  • 00:11:09
    they Tom CLA and Libby lock worked
  • 00:11:11
    together at a big corporate law firm
  • 00:11:13
    Kirkland and Ellis uh and they he Tom
  • 00:11:17
    was Libby's mentor and accounts of this
  • 00:11:19
    differ depending on who you're asking
  • 00:11:21
    but the account that I heard most often
  • 00:11:23
    from people I trusted the most was that
  • 00:11:25
    Tom and Libby began having an affair
  • 00:11:27
    while he was her mentor and often her
  • 00:11:30
    direct boss at uh Kirkland and Ellis Tom
  • 00:11:33
    and Libby deny that they were having an
  • 00:11:34
    affair at that point but there's they do
  • 00:11:36
    not deny that these rumors were
  • 00:11:37
    circulating and pressure grew internally
  • 00:11:40
    on them by all accounts and in 2014 they
  • 00:11:43
    decided the simplest thing to do would
  • 00:11:46
    be to leave Kirkland and start their own
  • 00:11:48
    firm and they decided that their own
  • 00:11:50
    firm would focus on what up until that
  • 00:11:52
    point had been this kind of Niche uh
  • 00:11:54
    Backwater which was defamation law so it
  • 00:11:57
    was a big gamble by them to create their
  • 00:11:58
    own firm focusing on this but basically
  • 00:12:01
    they very quickly over the space of
  • 00:12:02
    about two years went from no one having
  • 00:12:04
    heard of them to running this Boutique
  • 00:12:07
    Law Firm that had become the leaders and
  • 00:12:10
    threatening news outlets and journalists
  • 00:12:12
    occasionally filing lawsuits against
  • 00:12:14
    them but really kind of this no holds
  • 00:12:16
    bar approach to attacking journalists
  • 00:12:20
    and it was that's a that's a that's a
  • 00:12:22
    description that they kind of wear on
  • 00:12:23
    their sleeve I mean I don't know if this
  • 00:12:25
    is still true but for a while at least
  • 00:12:27
    you look on their website and they
  • 00:12:29
    basically they cited quotes in which
  • 00:12:30
    they had been called media assassins and
  • 00:12:33
    things like that so they they really
  • 00:12:34
    reveled in this kind of Outlaw
  • 00:12:37
    reputation and they were very Savvy
  • 00:12:39
    lawyers and also very Savvy their timing
  • 00:12:42
    was fantastic because their arrival this
  • 00:12:45
    independent Law Firm it coincided with
  • 00:12:47
    the rise of trump and with The Gawker
  • 00:12:49
    lawsuit which was basically like a
  • 00:12:51
    starters pistol firing on this race to
  • 00:12:54
    use law firms and lawsuits and legal
  • 00:12:57
    threats to get journalists to shut up if
  • 00:12:59
    you didn't like what they were writing
  • 00:13:01
    and so Tom and Libby became uh probably
  • 00:13:05
    the most feared law firm in the space
  • 00:13:07
    the certainly very Savvy practitioners
  • 00:13:10
    of the strongly worded uh threatening
  • 00:13:13
    letter and you know as they boast
  • 00:13:16
    themselves they've had a role in killing
  • 00:13:18
    stories by all sorts of news outlets one
  • 00:13:21
    of the things that I found during my
  • 00:13:22
    reporting that they do not really boast
  • 00:13:23
    about is that often times what they're
  • 00:13:25
    killing are local and independent
  • 00:13:27
    journalists who are trying to look into
  • 00:13:30
    the Affairs of some really shady people
  • 00:13:32
    and you know they they they cloak this
  • 00:13:35
    in argument about protecting people's
  • 00:13:37
    rights to privacy and their reputational
  • 00:13:40
    rights and pushing back against you know
  • 00:13:43
    a reckless out-of-control liberal media
  • 00:13:45
    the truth is that the most effect that
  • 00:13:48
    they've had often that I've seen at
  • 00:13:49
    least in my reporting is often with
  • 00:13:52
    journalists who don't really have the
  • 00:13:53
    resources to fight back and they're
  • 00:13:56
    Claire lock are representing you know
  • 00:13:58
    big companies that have polluted or
  • 00:14:01
    powerful public figures who have abused
  • 00:14:03
    people you know it's not quite the uh
  • 00:14:06
    picture that they paint of themselves
  • 00:14:07
    but there's no question they've played
  • 00:14:09
    an just an absolutely instrumental role
  • 00:14:11
    in kind of changing the media Dynamics
  • 00:14:13
    in this country where this simple Act of
  • 00:14:16
    writing about or investigating or
  • 00:14:18
    criticizing someone in a position of
  • 00:14:20
    power leaves you pretty vulnerable to at
  • 00:14:22
    the at a bare minimum getting one of
  • 00:14:24
    these sternly worded letters it's also
  • 00:14:26
    like local news has been so decimated by
  • 00:14:29
    you know the tech Giants that have
  • 00:14:31
    completely uh you know disrupted their
  • 00:14:33
    business model and left them completely
  • 00:14:35
    broke so we've seen layoffs in that
  • 00:14:37
    space and then I mean you T these
  • 00:14:39
    horrifying stories too in more recent
  • 00:14:41
    years of local journalists trying to do
  • 00:14:43
    just the most basic accountability
  • 00:14:44
    reporting and now finding all of these
  • 00:14:47
    roadblocks yeah and you know the media
  • 00:14:49
    industry is kind of screwed up right now
  • 00:14:51
    uh for sure but like to me one of the
  • 00:14:53
    bright spots is that we've got this
  • 00:14:55
    proliferation of independent journalists
  • 00:14:57
    all over the country and people people
  • 00:15:00
    obviously like you who have their own
  • 00:15:01
    newsletters and their own podcasts but
  • 00:15:04
    it's like there's people of all
  • 00:15:05
    different political Persuasions and and
  • 00:15:07
    styles and it's just this like great
  • 00:15:10
    kind of wonderful noise of discourse all
  • 00:15:13
    over the country I think where there's
  • 00:15:14
    no filters and I just think it's a
  • 00:15:16
    really cool good thing for democracy
  • 00:15:19
    especially at a time when so many
  • 00:15:21
    traditional news outlets are under
  • 00:15:22
    Financial pressure but let me say these
  • 00:15:25
    like legal threats and lawsuits that are
  • 00:15:26
    being pushed by a very wide variety of
  • 00:15:29
    lawers at this point like represent I
  • 00:15:31
    think a really existential threat to a
  • 00:15:33
    lot of these new independent uh
  • 00:15:35
    journalists and Publishers because most
  • 00:15:37
    people cannot afford liable Insurance
  • 00:15:39
    don't have the money or the wherewithal
  • 00:15:41
    to find lawyers and frankly don't have
  • 00:15:43
    the stomach to spend years tied up in
  • 00:15:46
    litigation over stuff that you you know
  • 00:15:48
    a lawyer will tell you you will win
  • 00:15:50
    because the Constitution is on your side
  • 00:15:53
    but that might take years and it might
  • 00:15:55
    entail a ton of money the psychological
  • 00:15:58
    stress that
  • 00:15:59
    seen uh reporters and Publishers facing
  • 00:16:03
    is really intense and it goes beyond
  • 00:16:05
    just being concerned about money it's
  • 00:16:06
    like it takes a really severe toll and
  • 00:16:09
    has driven like a number of journalists
  • 00:16:12
    to like in really into the Mental Health
  • 00:16:14
    crisis I mean also so often these
  • 00:16:16
    lawsuits are not even about winning I
  • 00:16:18
    mean I've been sued for defamation many
  • 00:16:20
    times now and um you know most recently
  • 00:16:23
    which the New York Times uh defended me
  • 00:16:25
    wonderfully uh and obviously was a bogus
  • 00:16:27
    lawsuit right um and but it was filed by
  • 00:16:30
    this firm that has of course gone after
  • 00:16:31
    the journalists many times the goal is
  • 00:16:33
    to just smear your reputation so you
  • 00:16:35
    know of course the person suing me uh
  • 00:16:37
    which again lost the lawsuit did
  • 00:16:39
    multiple Tucker Carlson Fox News
  • 00:16:41
    appearances there's endless articles
  • 00:16:43
    dozens and dozens of Articles across the
  • 00:16:44
    rightwing media about how I'm so
  • 00:16:46
    unethical just quoting directly from
  • 00:16:47
    this lawsuit we won the lawsuit nothing
  • 00:16:50
    I mean the New York Times put out a
  • 00:16:51
    tweet saying we won the law suit but
  • 00:16:53
    like not a single outlet covered it and
  • 00:16:55
    it's very you know it's it's used to
  • 00:16:57
    basically like discredit the journalist
  • 00:16:59
    reputations that's like a really I think
  • 00:17:02
    good and accurate microcosm of what's
  • 00:17:04
    going on more broadly which is that
  • 00:17:06
    people like Trump and his allies are
  • 00:17:09
    using this legal campaign and these
  • 00:17:11
    tactics to try and discredit the entire
  • 00:17:13
    media ecosystem and it doesn't matter if
  • 00:17:15
    it's the New York Times or just Taylor
  • 00:17:17
    Loren's and her podcast or if it's
  • 00:17:20
    whatever it doesn't matter the point is
  • 00:17:23
    that people in positions of power and
  • 00:17:25
    this White House in particular in a
  • 00:17:26
    position of power if they are relying on
  • 00:17:30
    kind of distortions and lies and
  • 00:17:32
    conspiracy theories to advance their
  • 00:17:34
    agenda then it is very much in their
  • 00:17:36
    interest to discredit and weaken voices
  • 00:17:40
    in the media that are going to refute
  • 00:17:42
    those lies and distortions and so I
  • 00:17:44
    think this is there's a broad campaign
  • 00:17:47
    underway to Foster distrust and to
  • 00:17:50
    financially weaken and to
  • 00:17:51
    psychologically beat down journalists
  • 00:17:54
    and news outlets and Publishers and just
  • 00:17:57
    everyday citizens and activists who have
  • 00:17:59
    a tendency to speak up for themselves
  • 00:18:01
    and to speak up for what they see is
  • 00:18:02
    right and wrong and to try and present
  • 00:18:04
    the truth and you know the beauty of
  • 00:18:07
    Sullivan from my biased opinion or my
  • 00:18:10
    biased perspective is that you know the
  • 00:18:12
    media gets things wrong all the time
  • 00:18:14
    right we get facts wrong sometimes we
  • 00:18:15
    have our biases that lead us to be too
  • 00:18:17
    hard or too soft on someone it it for
  • 00:18:21
    sure happens but generally in my
  • 00:18:23
    experience anyway journalists operate in
  • 00:18:25
    good faith and we try to get facts right
  • 00:18:27
    and we try to we we do our best
  • 00:18:29
    approximation of the truth on a daily
  • 00:18:31
    basis and there's this campaign underway
  • 00:18:34
    primarily coming from the right wing
  • 00:18:36
    that not only seeks to discredit what
  • 00:18:38
    the journalists are doing but is really
  • 00:18:40
    trying to create this what I think is a
  • 00:18:43
    fake story about media smears and about
  • 00:18:46
    the unethical conduct and just
  • 00:18:49
    unreliability of what is produced day in
  • 00:18:51
    Day Out by all sorts of different news
  • 00:18:54
    outlets and again it's an effort to
  • 00:18:56
    discredit those and to weaken those who
  • 00:18:58
    are telling a truth that threatens
  • 00:19:00
    people who are relying on lies and
  • 00:19:03
    distortions to advance their agenda it's
  • 00:19:04
    so funny there was multiple times when I
  • 00:19:06
    was reading this book and uh as anybody
  • 00:19:08
    that follows me know like I've gotten a
  • 00:19:10
    lot of coverage myself like media
  • 00:19:12
    coverage myself mostly in the right-wing
  • 00:19:14
    media but also in mainstream
  • 00:19:17
    Publications that I believe knowingly
  • 00:19:19
    have printed false information and it's
  • 00:19:22
    been a challenge to get things like that
  • 00:19:24
    corrected um I like I basically have to
  • 00:19:26
    rely on my own media clout and if the
  • 00:19:28
    fact that some of these people know me
  • 00:19:30
    to get it fixed but if I didn't have
  • 00:19:32
    those connections and even with my
  • 00:19:34
    connections I can't always get things
  • 00:19:35
    corrected in time liby Lock's bio says
  • 00:19:38
    something it says oh yeah founding
  • 00:19:39
    partner of clar loock guaranteeing a
  • 00:19:41
    free press not a consequence Free Press
  • 00:19:43
    yeah she loves that line so corny but it
  • 00:19:46
    is frustrating like what can people do
  • 00:19:49
    that have been subject to bad faith
  • 00:19:50
    attacks or you know Fox News that openly
  • 00:19:52
    I would argue lies about people like
  • 00:19:54
    don't they deserve more recourse I don't
  • 00:19:56
    think they do no because I think there
  • 00:19:58
    is a lot of recourse like I think if you
  • 00:20:00
    look at it there are many instances
  • 00:20:03
    recently of I not of you but of other
  • 00:20:06
    people who have been the victims of lies
  • 00:20:09
    and deliberate distortions especially by
  • 00:20:11
    the right-wing media suing successfully
  • 00:20:13
    and clearing the high bar that Sullivan
  • 00:20:16
    sets and I think and you look at Fox uh
  • 00:20:19
    and their huge settlement with Dominion
  • 00:20:21
    you can look at uh Sandy Hook families
  • 00:20:24
    and their lawsuit against Alex Jones you
  • 00:20:25
    can look at pole workers in Georgia and
  • 00:20:28
    their successful suit against R Rudy
  • 00:20:29
    Giuliani there are a bunch of other
  • 00:20:31
    examples as well look when people are
  • 00:20:33
    spreading lies reputationally damaging
  • 00:20:35
    lies they should be held account for
  • 00:20:37
    that and even and even when you're when
  • 00:20:40
    it's a private person involved you're a
  • 00:20:41
    public figure sorry to say but there's
  • 00:20:43
    uh like if you're a private person the
  • 00:20:45
    bar is much lower right you do not need
  • 00:20:47
    to meet the actual malth standard and I
  • 00:20:50
    just think the the thing I like just
  • 00:20:52
    want everyone to know always is that
  • 00:20:54
    there are plenty of examples of the
  • 00:20:56
    media getting things wrong sometimes bad
  • 00:20:58
    getting wrong and I like I think the
  • 00:21:00
    media could be especially the mainstream
  • 00:21:02
    media could be a lot better at being
  • 00:21:04
    transparent and holding itself
  • 00:21:06
    accountable just being open with readers
  • 00:21:08
    and the public when we mess up because
  • 00:21:10
    we do mess up that said I don't think
  • 00:21:13
    that uh this is because of New York
  • 00:21:15
    Times versus Sullivan or because of the
  • 00:21:17
    first amendment I think this is because
  • 00:21:19
    there it's like in a social media age it
  • 00:21:22
    is very hard to hold anyone accountable
  • 00:21:24
    for anything the social media companies
  • 00:21:26
    themselves obviously can't be held
  • 00:21:27
    accountable under the law and you know
  • 00:21:30
    we could have a whole other debate about
  • 00:21:31
    whether that makes sense and why or why
  • 00:21:32
    not but to me I think the really
  • 00:21:34
    important thing to emphasize though is
  • 00:21:35
    that for the most part the traditional
  • 00:21:38
    media and all these new media Outlets
  • 00:21:41
    are doing their best it's imperfect but
  • 00:21:43
    they're doing their best to get things
  • 00:21:44
    right and to generally correct their
  • 00:21:46
    mistakes when they get things wrong I
  • 00:21:48
    think there is a concerted movement on
  • 00:21:50
    the right that is not operating in good
  • 00:21:52
    faith and they are trying to go Jin up
  • 00:21:55
    examples of supposed bad faith Behavior
  • 00:21:57
    by the media and in fact what they're
  • 00:21:59
    doing is really just actively trying to
  • 00:22:03
    undercut American faith in truth and
  • 00:22:07
    accuracy and the existence of facts and
  • 00:22:10
    there's no better way to do that than to
  • 00:22:12
    spread the fiction that journalists all
  • 00:22:14
    they do is smear people and they operate
  • 00:22:16
    with impunity and look again it's not
  • 00:22:18
    about the media being perfect because we
  • 00:22:20
    are far from it but there's there's a
  • 00:22:22
    big difference between being imperfect
  • 00:22:24
    which we are and being this kind of
  • 00:22:27
    rabid dog that needs to be put down
  • 00:22:30
    which is the way that people like Libby
  • 00:22:31
    lock and certainly Donald Trump portray
  • 00:22:34
    us and maybe the truth is somewhere in
  • 00:22:36
    the middle but like it's definitely not
  • 00:22:38
    this extreme caricature that the right
  • 00:22:40
    is using to delegitimize journalism you
  • 00:22:43
    wrote about the Dominion lawsuit which
  • 00:22:46
    uh I know Clare lock was somewhat
  • 00:22:48
    involved in although it sounds like
  • 00:22:49
    Libby luck didn't even want to be that
  • 00:22:50
    involved in it but you talk about the
  • 00:22:52
    sort of like uh how it was almost like a
  • 00:22:54
    lose lose either way where it was like
  • 00:22:56
    if they won the lawsuit and one which
  • 00:22:58
    they did uh in one sense they could
  • 00:23:00
    prove well you know the system works
  • 00:23:02
    right like people can be held
  • 00:23:04
    accountable but then that also kind of
  • 00:23:06
    discredits their campaign against
  • 00:23:07
    Sullivan um because of course if they
  • 00:23:08
    lost they could argue see look we can't
  • 00:23:10
    hold the media accountable they put
  • 00:23:11
    themselves in a bit of a bind there
  • 00:23:13
    because they want obviously they wanted
  • 00:23:14
    to win that was in their financial
  • 00:23:16
    self-interest it was in their
  • 00:23:18
    psychological self-interest but if they
  • 00:23:20
    won it was going to prove the opposite
  • 00:23:22
    thing that Libby and others had been
  • 00:23:24
    arguing which is that you can't hold
  • 00:23:25
    media companies to account and I think
  • 00:23:27
    that was a big part of the reason Libby
  • 00:23:28
    was secretly trying to pull her firm off
  • 00:23:31
    of this case while it was ongoing which
  • 00:23:34
    is something that I think very few
  • 00:23:37
    people knew about but was definitely
  • 00:23:39
    happening behind the scenes it seems
  • 00:23:41
    like all of these cases are trying to
  • 00:23:43
    set these like legal precedence to
  • 00:23:44
    ultimately undo this bigger case of
  • 00:23:47
    Sullivan how close do you think we're
  • 00:23:48
    getting and can you talk about like the
  • 00:23:50
    efforts in recent years I mean do you
  • 00:23:52
    think we're closer than ever to seeing
  • 00:23:55
    something like that overturned and what
  • 00:23:56
    role also does the current makeup of the
  • 00:23:58
    Supreme Court play in that first of all
  • 00:23:59
    yes I do think we're closer than we've
  • 00:24:01
    been in a really long time to overturn
  • 00:24:03
    suvin I I might Hunt is that it probably
  • 00:24:06
    will not be overturned outright in the
  • 00:24:09
    immediate or even medium term I think
  • 00:24:11
    more likely is that it gets kind of
  • 00:24:14
    someone chips away around the edges and
  • 00:24:16
    basically makes it easier for like
  • 00:24:19
    public figures so like a billionaire or
  • 00:24:21
    a celebrity or a university president to
  • 00:24:25
    successfully win a defamation case
  • 00:24:27
    rather than going all the way
  • 00:24:29
    and making it easier for a public
  • 00:24:31
    official like an elected leader like
  • 00:24:32
    Trump or someone like that to win cases
  • 00:24:35
    but I mean I think even you know on the
  • 00:24:37
    margins like easing up on the first
  • 00:24:39
    amendment is potentially really
  • 00:24:41
    problematic and and again it can seem
  • 00:24:43
    logical and fair and you want to give
  • 00:24:45
    people the ability to preserve and
  • 00:24:47
    protect and defend their reputations
  • 00:24:49
    which I like I totally get and that
  • 00:24:51
    makes perfect sense but you also really
  • 00:24:53
    want to protect the Public's right and
  • 00:24:55
    journalist's right to investigate
  • 00:24:57
    matters of public importance and when
  • 00:24:59
    you make it easier for people to sue the
  • 00:25:01
    media but powerful people rich people to
  • 00:25:03
    sue the media it's like pretty clear
  • 00:25:05
    what's going to happen which is that
  • 00:25:06
    those legal threats become much more
  • 00:25:07
    potent and much scarier losses win more
  • 00:25:10
    often and more and more journalists make
  • 00:25:12
    the kind of economically rational
  • 00:25:15
    logical decision that it is not in their
  • 00:25:16
    best interest to write controversial
  • 00:25:19
    stories or to dig into the Affairs of
  • 00:25:21
    powerful people because you're going to
  • 00:25:23
    face an overwhelming legal response and
  • 00:25:25
    wouldn't it just be simpler not to do
  • 00:25:27
    that and that's not that's not a good
  • 00:25:29
    Dynamic and that's like really troubling
  • 00:25:31
    I think for democracy and for the
  • 00:25:34
    ability of even people at a community
  • 00:25:35
    level to like understand and hold
  • 00:25:37
    account hold to account what their
  • 00:25:39
    leaders and other powerful people are
  • 00:25:41
    doing one thing that uh protects
  • 00:25:43
    journalists in some states at least are
  • 00:25:45
    these anti-s slap laws um certainly I'm
  • 00:25:48
    in California was in New York before too
  • 00:25:50
    but having been involved in defamation
  • 00:25:51
    suits they always try to get it you know
  • 00:25:53
    heard in some state that doesn't have
  • 00:25:55
    these laws can you explain you know what
  • 00:25:56
    do these laws do and why are they so
  • 00:25:58
    important yeah so anti-ap laws basically
  • 00:26:01
    give if you're a defendant in a lawsuit
  • 00:26:03
    like a defamation lawsuit this gives you
  • 00:26:05
    recourse if the court finds that the
  • 00:26:08
    lawsuit was intended to suppress your
  • 00:26:11
    speech it gives you some recourse so you
  • 00:26:12
    can for example first of all you can get
  • 00:26:14
    the case dismissed a little more easily
  • 00:26:16
    you can also go and try and force the
  • 00:26:19
    plaintiff so the person who brought the
  • 00:26:21
    case to cover your legal expenses and so
  • 00:26:24
    it's been a really useful uh Rule and
  • 00:26:28
    quite a few states to deter the filing
  • 00:26:31
    of garbage lawsuits now the problem is
  • 00:26:34
    that if you are a billionaire if you
  • 00:26:36
    were Steve W or Elon Musk or Donald
  • 00:26:39
    Trump and you want to use losses to
  • 00:26:41
    threaten and intimidate especially
  • 00:26:42
    smaller news outlets the prospect of
  • 00:26:44
    having to pick up someone's attorney
  • 00:26:46
    fees is not that much of Aur maybe
  • 00:26:49
    that's going to cost you a few hundred
  • 00:26:50
    thousand dollars maybe a million or a
  • 00:26:52
    couple million that's not something that
  • 00:26:54
    is likely to have a huge or very
  • 00:26:57
    powerful deter it effect to prevent the
  • 00:26:59
    filing of these suits in the first place
  • 00:27:01
    it does make it easier for the defendant
  • 00:27:04
    to get them booted out of court a bit
  • 00:27:07
    faster but again that still can take
  • 00:27:08
    years and it can still mean that even if
  • 00:27:11
    you get the other side to pick up your
  • 00:27:13
    legal fees your costs for liable
  • 00:27:15
    insurance if you can even get liable
  • 00:27:17
    Insurance shoot up much higher and that
  • 00:27:21
    you know can take a toll for the
  • 00:27:23
    foreseeable future and again one of the
  • 00:27:25
    things I saw and tried to kind of
  • 00:27:26
    narrate in this book is that there all
  • 00:27:28
    these stories out there of journalists
  • 00:27:31
    at a local level doing their jobs and
  • 00:27:34
    finding that they're no fault of their
  • 00:27:35
    own not even and this is in a world with
  • 00:27:37
    svin through no fault of their own they
  • 00:27:39
    are getting like ground into dust
  • 00:27:43
    basically because people that have a lot
  • 00:27:45
    more money and resources than they do
  • 00:27:47
    have decided that what they're writing
  • 00:27:48
    about or their areas of coverage and
  • 00:27:50
    things like that are unpleasant and
  • 00:27:53
    unfavorable they're going to use the
  • 00:27:55
    weapons at their disposal to obliterate
  • 00:27:57
    the any journalist or news outlet that
  • 00:28:00
    delves into this and I think it's just
  • 00:28:02
    like anti- slap laws can exist or not
  • 00:28:04
    exist when you have a very determined
  • 00:28:06
    billionaire going up against you I'm not
  • 00:28:07
    sure they're going to matter all that
  • 00:28:09
    much one line that stood out to me so
  • 00:28:11
    much in the book is somebody there was
  • 00:28:12
    some line where they were talking about
  • 00:28:14
    like how much it would cost to take down
  • 00:28:16
    different media companies and I think
  • 00:28:18
    Gawker was I don't know what it was 400
  • 00:28:20
    million or something I can't remember
  • 00:28:21
    what the number was but you mentioned
  • 00:28:23
    the number for the New York Times I
  • 00:28:24
    think or was the New York Times 100
  • 00:28:26
    million yeah I think it was 100 million
  • 00:28:28
    which is like that's a lot of money it's
  • 00:28:30
    a lot of money but it's also like not
  • 00:28:33
    that much money like for a billionaire
  • 00:28:35
    like when I saw that number and that's
  • 00:28:37
    to take down the New York Times and of
  • 00:28:38
    course it's complete speculation but you
  • 00:28:40
    look at someone like Elon Musk right who
  • 00:28:42
    bought Twitter for 44 billion taking
  • 00:28:45
    down the New York Times if that's only a
  • 00:28:47
    100 million I'm honestly it's it just
  • 00:28:50
    doesn't seem that excessive when you
  • 00:28:51
    consider how the amount of wealth that
  • 00:28:54
    some of these people have accumulated
  • 00:28:55
    and this is one of the challenges right
  • 00:28:57
    now I think that you have people like
  • 00:28:59
    musk that have such incredible
  • 00:29:01
    concentrated wealth and therefore power
  • 00:29:03
    that it's very hard to structure laws or
  • 00:29:06
    even the constitution in a way that
  • 00:29:07
    Reigns them in or allows that or or
  • 00:29:10
    protects normal people or journalists
  • 00:29:13
    from them exerting their influence in
  • 00:29:16
    potentially really problematic ways and
  • 00:29:18
    look the 100 million figure was this guy
  • 00:29:20
    Aaron dza who was kind of the behind the
  • 00:29:22
    scenes Mastermind of The Gawker lawsuit
  • 00:29:24
    telling me how he had spitballed with
  • 00:29:26
    other people who are interested in going
  • 00:29:28
    after places like the New York Times and
  • 00:29:30
    I did not request or see a forensic
  • 00:29:32
    accounting of how that $100 million
  • 00:29:35
    might be spent but I mean look there's
  • 00:29:37
    no doubt that look we're seeing right
  • 00:29:40
    now with musk going after Media Matters
  • 00:29:42
    which is uh an advocacy group and
  • 00:29:44
    research group that employs journalists
  • 00:29:46
    and that has scrutinized a lot of uh the
  • 00:29:49
    rise of kind of hate speech on Twitter
  • 00:29:52
    or x uh he is pursuing this kind of No
  • 00:29:55
    Holds Barred multinational legal
  • 00:29:57
    campaign that is designed to shut them
  • 00:29:59
    down and there's some signs that it's
  • 00:30:01
    starting to work and it's that's just
  • 00:30:04
    one random example that I think really
  • 00:30:07
    shows how
  • 00:30:09
    vulnerable news outlets advocacy groups
  • 00:30:12
    normal citizens are and how powerless we
  • 00:30:15
    can be to uh you know even use the
  • 00:30:19
    rights that are clearly enshrined in the
  • 00:30:21
    First Amendment and to me that's like a
  • 00:30:23
    really strong argument in favor of
  • 00:30:25
    keeping those Protections in the
  • 00:30:26
    Constitution as strong as possible yeah
  • 00:30:28
    I mean are there efforts to strengthen
  • 00:30:31
    Sullivan and other rulings like this
  • 00:30:33
    like how do you see the dismantling or
  • 00:30:35
    the attempted dismantling uh a roll back
  • 00:30:37
    of of a you know president like Sullivan
  • 00:30:39
    in line with all these other attacks on
  • 00:30:41
    free speech that we're seeing from the
  • 00:30:43
    Trump Administration well this is
  • 00:30:45
    attacking Sullivan is kind of a one of
  • 00:30:47
    the core pieces of the Playbook that
  • 00:30:50
    conservatives are deploying right now
  • 00:30:51
    and there's kind of some much more
  • 00:30:53
    immediate things they're also doing and
  • 00:30:55
    the Trump Administration L are like
  • 00:30:58
    eight weeks in maybe uh has you know one
  • 00:31:02
    thing after another that they've done to
  • 00:31:04
    either intimidate news outlets or bar
  • 00:31:07
    news outlets from things or investigate
  • 00:31:09
    news outlets and again that's only we're
  • 00:31:11
    in the early days of the Trump
  • 00:31:12
    Administration and I think those are
  • 00:31:14
    much more kind of direct frontal attacks
  • 00:31:17
    on the media the the campaign against
  • 00:31:18
    svin is something that's been going on
  • 00:31:19
    for a bit longer not that much longer
  • 00:31:21
    but a bit longer and it's going to take
  • 00:31:24
    a longer time to pay dividends if it
  • 00:31:26
    does at all and and but but this is one
  • 00:31:28
    of the things we've seen over the years
  • 00:31:29
    with the conservative legal movement is
  • 00:31:31
    that they are very patient very well
  • 00:31:33
    organized very well financed and you
  • 00:31:36
    know if they're persistent enough over a
  • 00:31:38
    period of time which might be decades
  • 00:31:40
    they often get their way because they've
  • 00:31:42
    been very Savvy about picking judges and
  • 00:31:45
    very Savvy about picking cases and the
  • 00:31:48
    you know using legal strategies to get
  • 00:31:51
    cases that might work might entice the
  • 00:31:53
    Supreme Court to intervene so that
  • 00:31:55
    hasn't happened yet obviously with
  • 00:31:56
    Sullivan but I definitely I think it's a
  • 00:31:59
    risk and if it if that were to happen
  • 00:32:02
    man it's just all the forces I've
  • 00:32:04
    described in this book and we're talking
  • 00:32:05
    about now are just going to be
  • 00:32:07
    exponentially more effective and
  • 00:32:09
    exponentially scarier and you know the
  • 00:32:12
    public will be in a much worse space
  • 00:32:14
    because we won't have journalists or as
  • 00:32:16
    many journalists doing their jobs
  • 00:32:17
    properly yeah I mean I was in India uh
  • 00:32:20
    in January for a couple weeks visiting
  • 00:32:22
    friends who's are journalists over there
  • 00:32:24
    uh my really close friend who's dealt
  • 00:32:26
    with um you know legal issues in that
  • 00:32:29
    country and it's wild to look around the
  • 00:32:32
    world at some of these places that
  • 00:32:34
    really don't have a free press anymore
  • 00:32:36
    um I guess you know you mentioned the UK
  • 00:32:38
    actually and their kind of stricter laws
  • 00:32:40
    um you know when you look around the
  • 00:32:42
    world are there any sort of comparisons
  • 00:32:43
    that you can draw between other
  • 00:32:45
    countries in terms of like what America
  • 00:32:46
    might look like without without Sullivan
  • 00:32:49
    and if some of these protections were
  • 00:32:50
    lost that's actually a really good
  • 00:32:52
    question um I mean India is a good
  • 00:32:54
    example I've not had the pleasure of
  • 00:32:55
    visiting India but I've heard about that
  • 00:32:58
    from people like you I think Hungary is
  • 00:33:01
    another example that gets floated around
  • 00:33:03
    a lot recently in terms of this kind of
  • 00:33:06
    slow but steady erosion of the of an
  • 00:33:09
    independent and kind vigorous press the
  • 00:33:12
    UK is interesting I worked in the UK for
  • 00:33:14
    many years for the Wall Street Journal
  • 00:33:16
    on the one hand the the you know British
  • 00:33:18
    they're a lot of good British
  • 00:33:19
    journalists they do a lot of good work
  • 00:33:21
    they can be very aggressive and
  • 00:33:23
    independent on the other hand their
  • 00:33:25
    investigations can get shut down very
  • 00:33:27
    easily in the courts and I personally
  • 00:33:29
    had I've been sued for defamation in the
  • 00:33:30
    UK and I've also had a British Court
  • 00:33:33
    issuing an injunction against me that
  • 00:33:35
    was supposed to prevent me from
  • 00:33:36
    reporting something and that's that's
  • 00:33:38
    the kind of thing that is like very
  • 00:33:39
    startling to me to see up close and
  • 00:33:42
    personal in a country that is like a
  • 00:33:44
    liberal democracy like the UK where they
  • 00:33:47
    do not have these Free Press uh
  • 00:33:49
    Protections enshrined in law and it
  • 00:33:53
    means that there's just a lot of stuff
  • 00:33:55
    that goes under the radar that does not
  • 00:33:57
    get covered even when journalists know
  • 00:33:59
    about it it remains secret and I just
  • 00:34:02
    think that more information in the
  • 00:34:04
    public domain and inform and
  • 00:34:05
    transparency is like a good thing for
  • 00:34:08
    our country and for democracy and I
  • 00:34:10
    think that a lot of what we're seeing is
  • 00:34:12
    moving in the opposite direction yeah
  • 00:34:15
    well I think also as we're witnessing
  • 00:34:16
    the dismantling of the traditional press
  • 00:34:18
    through all of these efforts and you
  • 00:34:20
    know you mentioned this too like it it's
  • 00:34:22
    been amazing to see this robust
  • 00:34:23
    Independent Media ecosystem they're so
  • 00:34:25
    incredibly vulnerable in a sense I mean
  • 00:34:27
    I would say independent journalists are
  • 00:34:28
    far more vulnerable if I write something
  • 00:34:30
    dicey I'm going to do it for a
  • 00:34:31
    traditional org freelance cuz I don't
  • 00:34:33
    want to worry and I'm in substack
  • 00:34:35
    Defender program I you know have like
  • 00:34:37
    legal Insurance to an extent but I mean
  • 00:34:39
    you wrote about Mike masnik in the book
  • 00:34:41
    who's a friend of mine also recently on
  • 00:34:43
    the show and you know he runs his own
  • 00:34:44
    independent site and like you mentioned
  • 00:34:46
    it just even being sued like UPS your uh
  • 00:34:48
    your fees um to the point that it just
  • 00:34:50
    becomes difficult um I'm also just
  • 00:34:52
    thinking of you know these efforts that
  • 00:34:54
    have been bipartisan to remove anonymity
  • 00:34:56
    from the internet and um know there's
  • 00:34:57
    plenty of independent journalists that
  • 00:34:59
    will like leak things to these Anonymous
  • 00:35:00
    accounts on Twitter uh Etc especially in
  • 00:35:03
    celebrity news world like this is a big
  • 00:35:05
    thing and then Journal you know the
  • 00:35:06
    actress or whatever wants to sue for
  • 00:35:07
    defamation or Sue to S shut something
  • 00:35:10
    down but it's Anonymous and now you have
  • 00:35:12
    also these right-wing forces with the
  • 00:35:14
    Democrats trying to strip anonymity from
  • 00:35:16
    the internet and trying to make
  • 00:35:17
    everybody more quote unquote accountable
  • 00:35:19
    but I think what It ultimately does is
  • 00:35:20
    allow just make it harder to reveal
  • 00:35:23
    wrongdoing right it is just extremely
  • 00:35:25
    important that journalists and others
  • 00:35:27
    have the right to criticize freely and
  • 00:35:31
    as long as you're not lying or being
  • 00:35:32
    totally Reckless to be able to like
  • 00:35:34
    speak up if you see something that is an
  • 00:35:37
    injustice or something wrongdoing that
  • 00:35:39
    you can expose like I think it is
  • 00:35:42
    important that we have the right and
  • 00:35:44
    ability to do that without fearing that
  • 00:35:47
    we're going to be outed or that we're
  • 00:35:49
    going to be crushed by litigation and I
  • 00:35:51
    mean I think that's one of the things
  • 00:35:52
    that a lot of people are worried about
  • 00:35:53
    right now with the Trump Administration
  • 00:35:54
    you know journalists and others rely on
  • 00:35:56
    confidential sources a lot not because
  • 00:35:59
    these people don't exist we know who
  • 00:36:01
    they are it's just we're not we're
  • 00:36:02
    keeping their identities confidential
  • 00:36:03
    because they're afraid of facing
  • 00:36:05
    retaliation or sometimes like they're in
  • 00:36:08
    physical danger at times and I think you
  • 00:36:11
    know there have been a lot of efforts
  • 00:36:12
    under previous administrations both
  • 00:36:14
    Democrat and Republican to kind of out
  • 00:36:17
    journalists Anonymous sources but I
  • 00:36:18
    think there's even more concern right
  • 00:36:20
    now that with someone like cash Patel in
  • 00:36:22
    charge of the FBI that you're going to
  • 00:36:25
    have much more Draconian actions taken
  • 00:36:27
    by the administration potentially to
  • 00:36:30
    reveal journalists sources and
  • 00:36:31
    potentially to try to hold journalists
  • 00:36:33
    themselves accountable for violating
  • 00:36:36
    like State secrecy laws and things like
  • 00:36:37
    that which is man like what a chilling
  • 00:36:40
    effect that will have and and it'll
  • 00:36:41
    really impair the ability of everyone
  • 00:36:44
    but as most of all people without the
  • 00:36:45
    resources to hire their own lawyers to
  • 00:36:48
    write things that are revealing about
  • 00:36:51
    the government and there's so much more
  • 00:36:52
    of that happening on substack and just
  • 00:36:55
    on social media right now than there
  • 00:36:56
    ever has been I think and it's it's
  • 00:36:58
    where a lot of us have been getting our
  • 00:36:59
    news lately about the latest going on
  • 00:37:02
    inside the Trump Administration there's
  • 00:37:03
    like a growing group of people who are
  • 00:37:06
    really trusted by sources inside the
  • 00:37:07
    federal government and those people
  • 00:37:09
    don't always work for the New York Times
  • 00:37:10
    or the Washington Post or the Wall
  • 00:37:11
    Street Journal and again that's like a
  • 00:37:13
    really good thing I think for democracy
  • 00:37:15
    it's it's also good for like mainst stre
  • 00:37:17
    news outlets to have competition and to
  • 00:37:20
    really have to like fight to get the
  • 00:37:22
    best stories but it also is a point of
  • 00:37:24
    weakness because PE the a lot of the
  • 00:37:26
    journalists that are producing that
  • 00:37:28
    invaluable information are one bad
  • 00:37:31
    lawsuit or one sloppy mistake away from
  • 00:37:34
    being in really serious financial and
  • 00:37:36
    legal Jeopardy and that is that's a
  • 00:37:38
    scary place to be that's what I always
  • 00:37:40
    tell people when a lot of people in like
  • 00:37:41
    the Creator industry whatever it's like
  • 00:37:43
    they're cheering for the downfall of the
  • 00:37:45
    mainstream media they cheer for these
  • 00:37:46
    things when people get sued into
  • 00:37:48
    Oblivion or whatever right they're like
  • 00:37:49
    screw those people they deserve to die
  • 00:37:51
    and it's like well that can so it that
  • 00:37:53
    is even worse for the independent
  • 00:37:54
    journalists like the independent media
  • 00:37:55
    is not exempt from uh this entire legal
  • 00:37:58
    infrastructure what do you think I guess
  • 00:38:00
    like average people that are listening
  • 00:38:02
    to this that care about this issue um
  • 00:38:04
    you know we' see these changes happening
  • 00:38:05
    in the courts and it it feels so
  • 00:38:08
    impossible to affect any change like
  • 00:38:10
    what do you think that they can do about
  • 00:38:12
    this so this is a total self-serving
  • 00:38:15
    copout but I think you should like first
  • 00:38:17
    of all read and buy as many copies of my
  • 00:38:19
    book as you can afford please but like I
  • 00:38:21
    think you just need to like get educated
  • 00:38:23
    about these issues a little bit uh as I
  • 00:38:25
    was kind of starting this book project
  • 00:38:26
    and kind of ing the waters with like
  • 00:38:28
    friends and colleagues and family uh
  • 00:38:31
    like no one I talked to basically
  • 00:38:33
    especially outside of Journalism had any
  • 00:38:35
    idea what this decision was or why it
  • 00:38:36
    mattered and I think there is and you
  • 00:38:39
    just kind of alluded to this there's
  • 00:38:40
    like a reflex that a lot of people have
  • 00:38:42
    right now who are frustrated with the
  • 00:38:44
    media for one reason or another to kind
  • 00:38:46
    of cheer for these somewhat kind of
  • 00:38:50
    draconian actions that get taken whether
  • 00:38:52
    it's a government investigation or a
  • 00:38:54
    lawsuit and I just think people need to
  • 00:38:57
    understand
  • 00:38:57
    better how this fits into a very
  • 00:39:01
    coordinated campaign and strategy that's
  • 00:39:03
    being executed on the right wing to
  • 00:39:06
    delegitimize people and institutions
  • 00:39:08
    that will speak truth to power and I
  • 00:39:10
    think that this isn't the media as I've
  • 00:39:13
    said a thousand times and I'm sorry to
  • 00:39:15
    be a broken record we get things wrong
  • 00:39:16
    all the time that's frustrating it's bad
  • 00:39:19
    we need to be held accountable and
  • 00:39:20
    transparent but we're oper we're doing
  • 00:39:22
    the best we can even if the best isn't
  • 00:39:24
    good enough sometimes and this this kind
  • 00:39:27
    of blanket maligning of the media
  • 00:39:30
    because of its uh failures I think it's
  • 00:39:33
    really it can be dangerous because
  • 00:39:35
    they're it's again playing into the
  • 00:39:37
    hands of people who really want to shut
  • 00:39:39
    down anyone who's criticizing them and
  • 00:39:41
    that's not to say we the media should
  • 00:39:42
    not be criticized we we definitely
  • 00:39:44
    should be and we should be more
  • 00:39:45
    receptive to that criticism but it's
  • 00:39:48
    understanding how these kind of
  • 00:39:49
    orchestrated assaults from conservative
  • 00:39:52
    lawyers and activists and judges and
  • 00:39:55
    politicians it's not an accident it's
  • 00:39:57
    not coincidental it's not organic it's
  • 00:39:59
    something that's happening very
  • 00:40:00
    deliberately and that has potentially
  • 00:40:02
    really great consequences so read my
  • 00:40:04
    book because it'll tell you all about
  • 00:40:05
    that literally I couldn't agree more and
  • 00:40:07
    then last question I was wondering
  • 00:40:08
    actually just writing about this topic
  • 00:40:11
    like were you nervous like writing this
  • 00:40:13
    book because I feel like you're writing
  • 00:40:15
    a a book about kind of all of these
  • 00:40:17
    people who all they want to do was Sue
  • 00:40:19
    journalists into Oblivion you know for
  • 00:40:21
    coverage so yeah I don't know like was
  • 00:40:23
    it nerve-wracking to write this book and
  • 00:40:24
    was there like an extensive legal review
  • 00:40:27
    look I operate from a position of
  • 00:40:29
    privilege professionally probably
  • 00:40:30
    personally as well but like certainly
  • 00:40:32
    professionally I like work for the New
  • 00:40:33
    York Times I previously worked at the
  • 00:40:34
    Wall Street Journal my book publisher is
  • 00:40:36
    Harper Collins which is part of a huge
  • 00:40:38
    conglomerate so look I've got good
  • 00:40:41
    strong institutions at my back and it
  • 00:40:45
    good strong lawyers who review my work
  • 00:40:46
    and so I don't think I was like that
  • 00:40:49
    nervous about like we I get the fact
  • 00:40:52
    like I I fact check I get things legally
  • 00:40:54
    bulletproofed I mean that being said I
  • 00:40:56
    did get you know I was not surprised by
  • 00:40:59
    this but they Clare lock waged its own
  • 00:41:02
    little micro campaign against me which
  • 00:41:04
    frankly surprised me I knew they were we
  • 00:41:06
    would get some angry letters from them
  • 00:41:08
    as we did fact checking both for a piece
  • 00:41:10
    I was doing for the New York Times and
  • 00:41:11
    also for this book I was surprised by
  • 00:41:13
    the kind of ferocity of their attack and
  • 00:41:15
    also just their was what felt to me at
  • 00:41:18
    least like them casually slinging around
  • 00:41:20
    like just absolute nonsense allegations
  • 00:41:24
    that about me being dishonest or kind of
  • 00:41:27
    disguising my true aims of what I was
  • 00:41:29
    writing and I mean at one point probably
  • 00:41:33
    the scariest moment for me was uh this
  • 00:41:36
    is back last year um I remember very
  • 00:41:39
    clearly I was walking home from the
  • 00:41:40
    train and uh we got a letter another
  • 00:41:43
    letter from Clare lock and I was
  • 00:41:44
    scanning it on my phone like scanning
  • 00:41:46
    through it on my phone and in it's like
  • 00:41:48
    a PDF and in the letter there were
  • 00:41:50
    screenshots of some of my electronic
  • 00:41:52
    communications with sources and my heart
  • 00:41:55
    just stopped because how on Earth did
  • 00:41:56
    they get those it turned out how they
  • 00:41:58
    got those is they had figured out who A
  • 00:42:00
    couple of my sources were just through
  • 00:42:02
    kind of Connecting the Dots here and
  • 00:42:03
    there and then they threatened my
  • 00:42:04
    sources with litigation if they didn't
  • 00:42:07
    hand over their Communications with me
  • 00:42:09
    and as it turned out the communications
  • 00:42:10
    were pretty innocuous and it was just me
  • 00:42:12
    like scheduling meetings or arranging
  • 00:42:14
    phone calls and things like that but man
  • 00:42:17
    it like stopped me in my tracks again
  • 00:42:19
    that's me having not only having good
  • 00:42:22
    institutional backing but also having
  • 00:42:23
    spent at that point I don't know like a
  • 00:42:26
    year and a half or two years
  • 00:42:27
    reporting and researching on these exact
  • 00:42:29
    topics and the fact that it surprised me
  • 00:42:31
    and really frankly unnerved me so much
  • 00:42:33
    it just like goes to show how terrifying
  • 00:42:37
    utterly terrifying that would be if you
  • 00:42:39
    didn't have the experience and the legal
  • 00:42:42
    backing and institutional backing that I
  • 00:42:44
    knew I had and and me you know as I
  • 00:42:46
    write in the book there are a lot of
  • 00:42:48
    places that in the face of threats like
  • 00:42:50
    that make the economically and kind
  • 00:42:52
    psychologically rational decision to
  • 00:42:54
    just fold to not pursue the fight and to
  • 00:42:56
    back down and it makes sense like in an
  • 00:42:59
    individual decision level capacity but
  • 00:43:02
    it's like a very bad thing for democracy
  • 00:43:05
    and for our Free Press when people make
  • 00:43:06
    those decisions but I also completely
  • 00:43:08
    get it all right David well thank you so
  • 00:43:10
    much for chatting with me thank you so
  • 00:43:12
    much for having me this has been fun all
  • 00:43:13
    right that's it for the show you can
  • 00:43:14
    watch full episodes of power user on my
  • 00:43:16
    YouTube channel @ Taylor Loren don't
  • 00:43:18
    forget to subscribe to my tech and
  • 00:43:20
    online culture newsletter user magag
  • 00:43:22
    that's user mag. that's user mag. for
  • 00:43:25
    all the latest tech and online culture
  • 00:43:27
    news delivered straight to your inbox if
  • 00:43:28
    you like this show don't forget to give
  • 00:43:30
    us a rating and review on Apple podcast
  • 00:43:32
    Spotify or wherever you listen we'll be
  • 00:43:34
    back next week with a brand new episode
  • 00:43:36
    of power user
标签
  • New York Times v Sullivan
  • freedom of the press
  • defamation
  • actual malice
  • journalism
  • libel laws
  • media landscape
  • legal threats
  • Peter Thiel
  • independent journalism