Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every day we bring you insight and analysis into the most important legal news of the day. You can find more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. The video went viral last month, a sixteen year old student wearing a Maga hat while facing down a Native American elder at
the Lincoln Memorial. Now that student, Nick Salmon, is suing the Washington Post for the way it covered the encounter. Joining me is Eugene professor at u c l A law school and founder of the popular blog The Voli Conspiracy. Let's talk about the complaint here, which has some conspiracy
theories among other allegations. Tell us a little bit about it. Well, Um, so, the plain to pursuing claiming that the Washington Post misreported what was going on in a way that damaged his reputation, and he points to home a bunch of different things that he says the Post incorrectly said. So. For example, he says that the Post talked about how he and his fellow students were supposedly swarming Nathan Phillips, the American Indian activists as supposedly blocking his exit and the like.
The difficulty is that a considerable number of things that are religion in the complaint are likely going to be seen as matters of opinion. So, for example, swarm, you know, that's a that's an evaluate of judgment. Whether somebody is swarming someone or coming up to someone or just being around someone in a large group, that's something that is
generally going to be seen as a matter of opinion. Likewise, there is a claim that the Washington Post article suggested that Sedman's behavior quote violated the fundamental standards of his religious community and violated the policies of his school, such that he should be expelled close quote, Even to the extent that article might have conveyed that message is also
pretty clearly a matter of opinion. What violates fundamental standards of religious community, and certainly for what somebody should be expelled, those are judgments of opinion. Also, some of the other things seemed to be not about him as such, they seem to be claims. That is to say, the things that they is saying are faults that were reported by the Post seemed to be claims about what other people
were saying. So for example, there was a claim that some people chanted build the wall, but I don't think that they ever said that he chanted that. And underliable lay you need to show that there are false statements made of and concerning you. Is there any indication in the lawsuit because this was on all the cable networks and it was in every publication you can think of. Why are they singling out the Post? Well, they certainly have said that they would be suing others as well.
They're entitled to sue the Post as well as others, or they if they wanted, for whatever reason, choose to see only the Post, they could. I do think think though that there might be difficulty showing that the Post article is what caused him any specific item of damages that he can point to. But in principle, they could sue anybody who has written about them, and it sounds like they would be. Uh. There are a few allegations
that do point to possible factual assertions. So, for example, the Washington Post did say that Phillips said that Sandman quote just blocked my way and wouldn't allow me to retreat close quote. That sounds like that might be an allegation of some factual misconduct, not just in a valuat of judgment, but I claim that, look, this person was essentially making it impossible for me to escape. Are they trying to hold the Post to a difficult reporting standard here?
So the plaintiffs would be viewed as a private figure, unlike a public official on like somebody really famous. But the statements are on a matter of public concern, and the legal rule there is kind of interestingly sp it. If a private figure is suing on a matter of public concern, then if he can show proven compensitory damages. He lost some scholarship, he lost a job, maybe even some people, some friends stopped talking to him, then in that case he needs merely to show that the Washington
Post was negligent in its coverage. But if he wants to get punitive damages, which he does, or so called presumed damages, which are compensitory damages but without any specific proof of any specific injury to reputation, but just based on common sense that certain statements might lead to reputational injury, then he has to show that the Washington Post actually knew the statements were false, or at least were likely false. That would be an especially hard standard for him to meet. Well,
would he also qualify as a limited purpose public figure? No, I don't think so. Limited purpose public figures are generally people who deliberately get themselves involved in some high profile debates. So if he deliberately went on to levision to speak out about his views about whatever I'm not sure actually what his views are on various subjects, then he would be limited purpose public figure. Merely showing up at in this case, a pro life rally is not enough to
make someone a limited purpose public figure. So is this an uphill legal battle? Yes, I think very much so. I think many of the statements are going to be found not to be factual assertions about sandmen, And as to the few seemingly factual assertions, I think the Post will have a good argument that either was reasonable in its investigation or the very least didn't know the statements were false and would most have to pay these proven
compensitory damages. And I'm not sure that sediment can prove any specific compensitory damages the ways an adult who aspired from a job because of an allegation might be able to prove. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Eugene Bolck, professor at u c l A Law School, and you can check out his blog, The Bolock Conspiracy. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg
dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg