In his decision to dismiss the case, handed down April 30, U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle wrote:
:Perceptions about Block's notions of race related issues were largely fueled and published by Block himself. In this regard, Block cannot complain about resulting perceptions of insensitivity and levity on serious issues like slavery.
This is, of course, an absurd point to introduce into a decision concerning Block's suit. The issue was not "about perceptions of insensitivity and levity on serious issues like slavery." It was the NYT implication that Dr. Block was in favor of slavery.
The judge makes clear in his decision what Block's suit was about:
Plaintiff claims that the quotations are taken out of context to give the impression that plaintiff is a racist, a supporter of slavery,and/or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 solely because of racial prejudices.9 Plaintiff filed this diversity suit asserting claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.That he goes on to distort the notion of what the suit is about by knocking down an argument not made by Block, suggests the Judge may have a future as a reporter for NYT.
For a full history of the Walter Block-NYT controversy see here.
-RW
The NYT was awarded both "costs" (which is usually just filing fees, deposition fees, expert fees) AND "reasonable attorney fees" which could be ridiculously high. Plaintiff is lucky the case didn't go further in which case the NYT could have run up even more attorney fees.
ReplyDeleteThe "logic" of the case reminds me of the "logic" of the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1982 ruling in favor of the Michigan campaign finance act which limited contributions to libertarian candidates at $750 while giving the Democrats and Republicans matching funds from the government.
Why would someone think they would get justice from a US court? If there's a lot of money available to file an appeal, I'd file an appeal. I don't know the statute, but based upon the award of fees so far, the NYT might get even more fees from winning the appeal.
The travesty of this irrational ruling should not upset us too much. We can feel comforted knowing the entire lawsuit was a free shot on goal in the first place. We always knew this was a deliberate attempt to take up the statists' own deluded notion of libel just to have the chance to take a shot back at a statist institution.
ReplyDeleteIf my belligerent enemy leaves one of his many guns on the ground, I pick it up, point it at him, pull the trigger, and it misfires, cursing its poor construction looks a gift horse in the mouth. Let's just be happy the state afforded Walter Block any means to try to strike back at the ruling class whatsoever.
And of course the state monopoly system of "justice" is broken, contradictory, biased, and unjust. That's kind of why we're fighting them in the first place. Fully internalizing that will make rulings like this a lot more understandable and less shocking.