♪
MARK MISSUS LIFE LIBERTY AND
LEVIN.
WE HAVE A GREAT GUEST.
HOW ARE YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
ON.
YOU DON'T DO A LOT OF
INTERVIEWS.
>> I DO NOT.
>> IT'S A PLEASURE TO HAVE
YOU.
YOU ARE NICLAS SAMMONS
LAWYER.
YOU BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST
THE WASHINGTON POST WHICH WE
WILL GET INTO GREAT DETAIL.
YOU ARE LIKE THE GO TO GUY
WHEN IT COMES TO CASES LIKE
THIS.
THIS IS UNIQUE.
YOU TAKE UP THE CASE OF THE
UNDERDOG, RICHARD JEWELL IS A
PERFECT EXAMPLE.
NAME SOME OF THE CLIENTS YOU
HAD IN THE PAST.
>> RICHARD WAS MY FIRST ONE
THAT GOT ME INVOLVED IN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AREA, IN 1996
WITH THE CENTENNIAL PARK
BOMBING.
SINCE RICHARD, I HAD OCCASION
TO REPRESENT INTERESTING AND
WONDERFUL, DELIGHTFUL PEOPLE.
JOHN AND PATSY.
REPORTER: MZ AND THEIR SON,
I'VE REPRESENTED THE FAMILY
FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
I'VE REPRESENTED BETH
HOLLOWAY, NATALIE HOLLOWAY'S
MOM FOR OVER TEN YEARS.
GARY CONDON FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS, HERMAN CAIN,
REPRESENTED A YOUNG GIRL
INVOLVED IN A KOBE BRYANT CASE
AND MORE RECENTLY A MAN
FALSELY ACCUSED OF BEING A
PEDOPHILE BY ELON MUSK.
HE WAS THE HERO OF SAVING THE
13 BOYS IN THE CAVE DISASTER.
I'VE HAD A VARIETY OF
CLIENTS.
I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME OF
THEM VERY WELL.
RICHARD WAS THE FIRST IN THIS
AREA.
HE DIED 11 YEARS AFTER THE
FALL ACCUSATIONS.
I THINK THE STRESS CONTRIBUTED
TO HIS DEATH AND I MISS HIM
EVERY DAY.
HE CHANGED MY LIFE AND CHANGED
MY CAREER.
MARK LET'S TALK ABOUT FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS ISSUE.
DO YOU STAND FOR FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS OR DO THE PEOPLE YOU
SUE STAND FOR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.
>> I WOULD SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY
I'M A BELIEVER IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAS NO STRENGTH IN REAL VALUE
IF THERE IS NOT ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR WRONGDOING.
WHEN PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE
SAY HE'S TRYING TO CHILL
SPEECH, I AM TRYING TO SEEK
REDRESS FOR FALSE SPEECH.
FALSE SPEECH HAS NO VALUE AND
IN THE SAMMONS CASE, YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT FALSE SPEECH
THAT THREATENED, ATTACKED AND
VILIFIED A MINOR CHILD.
IF I AM ACCUSED OF KILLING
THAT KIND OF SPEECH, I'M HAPPY
TO TAKE THAT UP, BANNER AND
WAVE IT PROUDLY.
WE DON'T NEED THAT SPEECH.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT.
MARK: I MENTION THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, WE HEAR PEOPLE
THROW AROUND THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS, WE HEAR REPORTERS WHO
USE IT, WHEN OUR CONSTITUTION
WAS ESTABLISHED, FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS BASICALLY MEANT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS
HANDS-OFF BUT THERE WAS STILL
POWER IN THE STATE WHERE
PEOPLE COULD BRING DEFAMATION
SUITS, CORRECT.
>> CORRECT.
DEFAMATION LAW, THE ABILITY TO
SUE SOMEONE FOR FALSE ATTACKS
ON YOUR REPUTATION WAS
GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY STATE
LAW UNTIL 1964.
IN 1954, A NEW YORK TIMES
VERSUS SULLIVAN, THE SUPREME
COURT BROUGHT IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IN CASES INVOLVING
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND IN THOSE
CASES, ACTUAL MALICE STANDS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIED
BUT IN THE REMAINDER OF THE
CASES, YOU WERE GOVERNED BY
STATE LAW.
STATE LAW GENERALLY ALLOWS YOU
TO RECOVER IF THE REPORTING IS
FALSE AND WAS NEGLIGENT.
NOW UNDER THE NEW YORK TIMES
STANDARD THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL
HAD TO PROVE YOU ACTUALLY KNEW
IT WAS FALSE, SUBJECTIVE OR
YOU ACTED IN RECKLESS
DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH.
THAT GOT EXPANDED BY SOME
BRIGHT MEDIA LAWYERS INTO
PUBLIC FIGURES AND PEOPLE OF
GENERAL NOTORIETY A FEW YEARS
LATER.
THEN IT WENT TO WHERE THEY
APPLIED IT IN ROSENBLUM VERSUS
THE MEDIA TO ANYONE INVOLVED
IN PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE SUPREME COURT REALIZED
THEY HAD GONE TOO FAR.
THEY DIAL THAT BACK AND
REVERSED ROSENBLUM AND SAID IT
WAS ONLY APPLYING TO A PRIVATE
FIGURE IF THAT PERSON HAD
VOLUNTARILY SUBJECTED HIMSELF
OR HERSELF INTO THE FOREFRONT
OR VORTEX OF A PUBLIC
CONTROVERSY TO INFLUENCE THE
OUTCOME OF THE CONTROVERSY.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE ACTUAL
MALICE STANDARD CAME FROM ON
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, IN TERMS OF
HOW ITS ROOTS IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
I THINK JUSTICE THOMAS
RECENTLY COMMENTED IN A
CONCURRING OPINION THAT HE
QUESTIONS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THAT RULE.
I THINK HE IS RIGHT.
I CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE THE
MEDIA NEEDS BREATHING ROOM
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, TO
RUSH OUT AND ADOPT A SOCIAL
MEDIUM MOB ATTACK ON A
16-YEAR-OLD CHILD.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT TO BE A VIABLE
PROTECTIVE TO OUR CITIZENS.
>> WE HAD FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
LONG BEFORE THOSE TIMES.
>> WE DID IN THE MEDIA SEEM TO
DO OKAY.
>> RADIO, TV WAS DEVELOPED,
ALL FORMS OF COMMUNICATION,
NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS WERE
DEVELOPED, SO THE MEDIA
BROADLY SPEAKING, REALLY HAD A
REVOLUTION IN COMMUNICATION,
EVEN PRIOR TO THE NEW YORK
TIMES VERSUS SULLIVAN.
I WOULD ASK YOU THIS QUESTION,
ARE WE BETTER OFF WHEN WE
BASICALLY HAVE REPORTERS THAT
CLAIM IMMUNITY?
IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW, WHERE
THEY CAN BASICALLY SAY
ANYTHING, CALL PEOPLE NAMES,
RUN REPORTS AND DO A LITTLE
RETRACTION LATER, MAYBE OR
MAYBE NOT?
DO YOU CLAIM THAT FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS?
IS THAT REALLY A HEALTHY WAY
FOR A NATION TO COMMUNICATE
PEOPLE TO PEOPLE, GROUP TO
GROUP.
>> LOOK AROUND YOU.
LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED.
LOOK AT THE DETERIORATION IN
THE MEDIA IN THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS.
THE LAST COUPLE DECADES, I'VE
WATCHED IT SINCE THE RICHARD
JEWELL CASE.
IT'S HORRIBLY UNHEALTHY.
THERE IS NOTHING VALUABLE TO
OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE FOR
PEOPLE TO JUST SIMPLY GO OUT
AND TELL RUMORS, LIES, MAKE
ACCUSATIONS WITH NO SOURCES,
TO BE ABLE TO USE THE MEDIA
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO IN
EFFECT, ADVANCE HIS OR HER OR
SOME CORPORATIONS OWN AGENDA.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO
NICHOLS.
A LOT OF AGENDAS AT WORK.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T
HAVE AN AGENDA WAS NICLAS
SAMMON.
HE WAS ON A FIELD TRIP TO THE
NATIONAL MALL TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE RIGHT TO LIFE MARCH.
IT'S GOTTEN TO BE A SITUATION
WHERE IT STARTED OFF, WHEN YOU
GOT TO THE INTERNET, MARK, AND
YOU HAVE THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COULD SIT IN THE
PRIVACY OF YOUR HOME, WITH A
FEW STROKES OF THE KEYBOARD
WITH ANONYMITY, YOU CAN SEND
OUT STATEMENTS TO THE WORLD
THAT COULD RUIN HER REPUTATION
IN SECONDS.
IF YOU TRACK THAT INTO HOW
IT'S EVOLVED TO SOCIAL MEDIA,
WHERE YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE
PEOPLE ON TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
AND THEIR ANONYMOUS, AND THEY
DETERIORATE THE LEVEL OF
DISCUSSION WERE NOW IT'S JUST
GOTTEN WORSE AND WORSE AND
WORSE.
NOW THE NEWS MEDIA TRACKS IT,
BECAUSE NOW YOU GO LOOK AT
MOST OF YOUR ARTICLES AND
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOURCES
SAY, PEOPLE CLOSE TO, NOBODY'S
IDENTIFIED.
IT USED TO BE THE MEDIA WAS
VERY CAREFUL IN USING ANY TYPE
OF CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE.
THEY HAD TO HAVE IT BACK IN
THE WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN
DAYS.
THE WASHINGTON POST REQUIRED
TO SOURCES TO VERIFY ANY
INFORMATION ATTRIBUTED TO DEEP
THROAT.
THOSE DAYS ARE GONE.
NOW THE MEDIA IS SIMPLY BECOME
LIKE THE INTERNET USERS IN THE
SOCIAL MEDIA USERS BECAUSE
THEY PUT OUT A LOT OF
INFORMATION WITHOUT ANY
ATTRIBUTION TO REAL SOURCES
WHO ARE IDENTIFIED, WHO CAN BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR LIES.
MARK: I WANT TO ASK ABOUT YOUR
CLIENT NICLAS SAMMON IN A
MOMENT, BUT FIRST I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT THIS THING WE
CALL THE MEDIA, CNN,
ULTIMATELY OWNED BY TIME
WARNER.
>> MAYBE AT&T NOW, BIG
CORPORATIONS.
>> NBC, MSNBC, COMCAST.
>> BIG CORPORATION.
MARK: WHAT KIND OF INFLUENCE
DOES THAT HAVE ON NEWSROOMS.
>> TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT KIND OF
COVERAGE WE HAVE AT NBC AND
MSNBC AND CNN.
THERE'S NO OBJECTIVITY, THERE
IS NO FAIRNESS, IT'S JUST LIKE
THEY'VE BECOME AN EXTENSION OF
POLITICAL PARTIES OUT TRYING
TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC,
INSTEAD OF INFORMING THE
PUBLIC.
IT USED TO BE THE STANDARD WAS
GET AT FIRST BUT GET IT
RIGHT.
THEY'VE THROWN OUT GET IT
RIGHT.
NOW I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN
WORRY ABOUT GETTING AT FIRST
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T.
I USE THE EXAMPLE, THAT IF YOU
LOOK BACK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO
NICLAS, YOU HAD THE MEDIA ALL
OVER PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEY HAD THE BUZZFEED REPORT
THAT SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD
DIRECTLY TOLD MICHAEL COHEN TO
LIE TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE
TRUMP HOTEL IN RUSSIA, AND
THEN FRIDAY NIGHT, MULLER
COMES OUT AND SAYS THAT STORY
IS INACCURATE, IS NOT TRUE.
THE MEDIA WENT TO BED FRIDAY
NIGHT WITH TWO BLACK EYES AND
THEY WOKE UP SATURDAY MORNING
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY AND
THEY CAME OUT SWINGING AGAIN,
THIS TIME THEY WERE SWINGING
AT A YOUNG BOY BECAUSE HE WAS
WEARING A MAKE AMERICA GREAT
AGAIN CAP AND THEY TOOK HIM
OUT AND TRIED TO PUNCH HIM AND
BEAT HIM AND ATTACK HIM LIKE A
SCHOOLYARD BULLY.
THE REASON I MAKE THAT POINT
IS THAT THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO
LOOK INTO THE ALLEGATIONS IN
THE STATEMENTS BEING MADE ON
SOCIAL MEDIA.
THEY JUST JOINED THE SOCIAL
MEDIA MOB.
THAT'S WHY I MAKE THE
REFERENCE THAT THEY HAVE
BECOME AN EXTENSION OF
POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE
SOCIAL MEDIA MOB AND THAT'S
BEYOND THE WILD WILD WEST.
THERE IS NO REAL LEGAL
ACCOUNTABILITY YET.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONTROL
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THE
TYPE OF CONDUCT AND THE TYPE
OF SPEECH WE ARE SEEING ON THE
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES, BUT IT
NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IT'S GOING HAVE TO BE
ACCOUNTABILITY, MARK, AND IF
WE DON'T GET ACCOUNTABILITY,
DETERIORATION WILL CONTINUE.
MARK: WHEN WE COME BACK I WANT
TO ASK ABOUT YOUR CLIENT
NICLAS SAMMON, HOW IS HE
DOING.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR
FIGHT WITH THE WASHINGTON POST
WHO, IF ANYONE'S NEXT, WHAT
YOUR PLANS ARE, WHAT YOUR
ARGUMENTS ARE, AND WHAT IS THE
REACTION OF SOME OF THE
TARGETS, YOUR POTENTIAL
TARGETS OF YOUR LITIGATION.
LADIES AND JONAH, DON'T
FORGET, ALMOST EVERY WEEKNIGHT
YOU CAN WATCH ME ON LEVINTV,