#cremer republic

[pyrosex]

Thinking about my BASEketball dark whump mpreg fanfiction I haven’t written yet and simultaneously spiraling out of control

If I could, I would make this a novel

[party-hard-or-die]

Interior minister offers to resign, in blow to German coalition

MUNICH/BERLIN (Reuters) – German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer offered his resignation to party colleagues late on Sunday, party officials said, escalating a row over migration with Chancellor Angela Merkel that threatens her fragile government.

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer during a Christian Social Union (CSU) leadership meeting in Munich, Germany July 1, 2018. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle

Seehofer said he was ready to step down as minister and as chair of his Christian Social Union (CSU) at a meeting where his party’s leadership was discussing whether to accept immigration proposals Merkel brought back from Brussels last week.

The move makes the future of Merkel’s government even more uncertain, since her Christian Democrats party (CDU) relies on the Bavarian conservative CSU to maintain power through a coalition formed three months ago to end a political vacuum.

Merkel lost votes to the far-right in elections last September, and she has been forced to turn to European Union neighbors to help resolve the row over how to deal with migrants trying to enter the country.

Germany’s political crisis is the latest sign of a growing divide across the EU between those who want to maintain open borders and those who want to restrict the number of migrants entering the bloc.

Seehofer, who has demanded that Merkel toughen her open-doors refugee policy, earlier told colleagues that in spite of the measures agreed with EU leaders, he saw no alternative to turning some migrants back at the border, a party source said.

Merkel rejects that idea.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leadership meeting in Berlin, Germany July 1, 2018. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

CSU leaders, divided over how to face down a challenge from the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) in October’s regional election, were trying to persuade Seehofer to change his mind about resigning, the officials said.

Seehofer told party colleagues at an executive committee meeting that discussions with Merkel had been fruitless, according to a party source.

But others in the CSU have pointed to opinion polls showing that Bavarians have more sympathy for Merkel than for either Seehofer or Bavarian Premier Markus Soeder.

By appealing to migration hardliners in the CSU, they argue, the party could lose votes in the center.

Earlier this week, EU leaders hammered out a deal to share out refugees on a voluntary basis and create “controlled centers” inside the European Union to process asylum requests.

Merkel said in an interview with ZDF television that the formal agreements and verbal commitments she had secured from her EU partners would have the migration-stemming effect the CSU wanted to achieve, but in a more European-minded fashion.

She reiterated her determination to act in way that was “not unilateral” and that was “not to the detriment of third parties”.

Slideshow (2 Images)

POLITICAL COMMITMENTS

“The sum of all we’ve agreed is equivalent to what the CSU wants – that’s my personal view, but the CSU must decide for themselves,” she said.

“It is also sustainable and in accordance with the European ideal. Europe is slow, and we aren’t yet where we want to be… In my view Europe will be held together, otherwise free movement could have been in danger,” she added.

A document circulated by Merkel to coalition allies on Friday night outlined repatriation accords with 16 countries and proposed reception centers in Germany where migrants would undergo an accelerated asylum procedure — steps that represent a significant hardening of her 2015 open-door asylum policy.

The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long sought to position himself as Merkel’s nemesis in the immigration debate polarizing the continent, later said they had signed no bilateral agreements.

In the interview, Merkel said she regretted any misunderstandings, but that she had been given “political commitments”, and had not said any deals had been signed.

Volker Bouffier, premier of the state of Hessen and Merkel’s close ally, said that the CSU should be pleased at what it had achieved so far as he arrived at a similarly protracted meeting of his and Merkel’s CDU in Berlin.

“Europe has moved further than ever because of the CSU’s pressure,” he said.

While most analysts expect Merkel to survive the clash with the CSU, it is unlikely to be the last occasion on which the sister party seeks to distance itself from a chancellor it sees as too centrist for its own supporters.

But some in German political circles say that the row actually reflects Seehofer’s longstanding rivalry with Soeder, who unseated him as Bavarian premier, accusing them of holding Germany hostage to a Bavarian issue.

“Seehofer, who has almost totally lost power in the CSU, now appears to want to bring down the chancellor in a kind of indirect political suicide … ending his career under the motto: first me, then the party, and maybe then the country,” wrote the Hannoversche Allgemeine newspaper in an editorial.

Reporting by Andreas Cremer, Victoria Bryan and Tom Koerkemeier in Berlin and Agnieszka Barteczko in Warsaw, Editing by Robin Pomeroy, Raissa Kasolowsky, William Maclean and Mike Collett-White

The post Interior minister offers to resign, in blow to German coalition appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2KDo0oL via Breaking News

[newestbalance]

Interior minister offers to resign, in blow to German coalition

MUNICH/BERLIN (Reuters) – German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer offered his resignation to party colleagues late on Sunday, party officials said, escalating a row over migration with Chancellor Angela Merkel that threatens her fragile government.

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer during a Christian Social Union (CSU) leadership meeting in Munich, Germany July 1, 2018. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle

Seehofer said he was ready to step down as minister and as chair of his Christian Social Union (CSU) at a meeting where his party’s leadership was discussing whether to accept immigration proposals Merkel brought back from Brussels last week.

The move makes the future of Merkel’s government even more uncertain, since her Christian Democrats party (CDU) relies on the Bavarian conservative CSU to maintain power through a coalition formed three months ago to end a political vacuum.

Merkel lost votes to the far-right in elections last September, and she has been forced to turn to European Union neighbors to help resolve the row over how to deal with migrants trying to enter the country.

Germany’s political crisis is the latest sign of a growing divide across the EU between those who want to maintain open borders and those who want to restrict the number of migrants entering the bloc.

Seehofer, who has demanded that Merkel toughen her open-doors refugee policy, earlier told colleagues that in spite of the measures agreed with EU leaders, he saw no alternative to turning some migrants back at the border, a party source said.

Merkel rejects that idea.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a Christian Democratic Union (CDU) leadership meeting in Berlin, Germany July 1, 2018. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

CSU leaders, divided over how to face down a challenge from the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) in October’s regional election, were trying to persuade Seehofer to change his mind about resigning, the officials said.

Seehofer told party colleagues at an executive committee meeting that discussions with Merkel had been fruitless, according to a party source.

But others in the CSU have pointed to opinion polls showing that Bavarians have more sympathy for Merkel than for either Seehofer or Bavarian Premier Markus Soeder.

By appealing to migration hardliners in the CSU, they argue, the party could lose votes in the center.

Earlier this week, EU leaders hammered out a deal to share out refugees on a voluntary basis and create “controlled centers” inside the European Union to process asylum requests.

Merkel said in an interview with ZDF television that the formal agreements and verbal commitments she had secured from her EU partners would have the migration-stemming effect the CSU wanted to achieve, but in a more European-minded fashion.

She reiterated her determination to act in way that was “not unilateral” and that was “not to the detriment of third parties”.

Slideshow (2 Images)

POLITICAL COMMITMENTS

“The sum of all we’ve agreed is equivalent to what the CSU wants – that’s my personal view, but the CSU must decide for themselves,” she said.

“It is also sustainable and in accordance with the European ideal. Europe is slow, and we aren’t yet where we want to be… In my view Europe will be held together, otherwise free movement could have been in danger,” she added.

A document circulated by Merkel to coalition allies on Friday night outlined repatriation accords with 16 countries and proposed reception centers in Germany where migrants would undergo an accelerated asylum procedure — steps that represent a significant hardening of her 2015 open-door asylum policy.

The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban has long sought to position himself as Merkel’s nemesis in the immigration debate polarizing the continent, later said they had signed no bilateral agreements.

In the interview, Merkel said she regretted any misunderstandings, but that she had been given “political commitments”, and had not said any deals had been signed.

Volker Bouffier, premier of the state of Hessen and Merkel’s close ally, said that the CSU should be pleased at what it had achieved so far as he arrived at a similarly protracted meeting of his and Merkel’s CDU in Berlin.

“Europe has moved further than ever because of the CSU’s pressure,” he said.

While most analysts expect Merkel to survive the clash with the CSU, it is unlikely to be the last occasion on which the sister party seeks to distance itself from a chancellor it sees as too centrist for its own supporters.

But some in German political circles say that the row actually reflects Seehofer’s longstanding rivalry with Soeder, who unseated him as Bavarian premier, accusing them of holding Germany hostage to a Bavarian issue.

“Seehofer, who has almost totally lost power in the CSU, now appears to want to bring down the chancellor in a kind of indirect political suicide … ending his career under the motto: first me, then the party, and maybe then the country,” wrote the Hannoversche Allgemeine newspaper in an editorial.

Reporting by Andreas Cremer, Victoria Bryan and Tom Koerkemeier in Berlin and Agnieszka Barteczko in Warsaw, Editing by Robin Pomeroy, Raissa Kasolowsky, William Maclean and Mike Collett-White

The post Interior minister offers to resign, in blow to German coalition appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2KDo0oL via Everyday News

[energysolutions]

Alexey Miller moderates Presiding Committee Meeting and 21st General Meeting of International Business Congress has been published on Energy Solutions News

New Post has been published on http://www.energybrokers.co.uk/news/gazprom/alexey-miller-moderates-presiding-committee-meeting-and-21st-general-meeting-of-international-business-congress

Alexey Miller moderates Presiding Committee Meeting and 21st General Meeting of International Business Congress

April 27, 2018

The 38th Presiding Committee Meeting and the 21st Annual General Meeting of the International Business Congress (IBC) moderated by Alexey Miller, Chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee and President of the IBC, took place today in New Delhi, Republic of India.

Taking part in the General Meeting were Suresh Prabhu, Minister of Commerce & Industry and Civil Aviation of India, and Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India).

The participants took stock of the IBC performance and commended the IBC Presiding Committee and the IBC Board of Executive Directors for their work in 2017. Meetings of the Working Committees were held.

The event also involved the election of the IBC Executive Board and Presiding Committee. Alexey Miller was reelected as the IBC President and Klaus Schaefer, CEO of Uniper, was reelected as the IBC Vice President.

The new Presiding Committee includes Christian Bruch, Member of the Linde Executive Board, Cederic Cremers, Country Chair at Shell Russia, Hemant Kanoria, Chairman & Managing Director of Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd, Masaki Kambayashi, Deputy CEO of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd, Igor Nechaev, CEO of Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem, and Mikhail Slipenchuk, CEO of IFC Metropol.

It was resolved to hold the next General Meeting in Germany in 2019.

A working meeting between Alexey Miller and Hemant Kanoria, Chairman & Managing Director of Srei (India), took place in the course of the Congress. The parties discussed the prospects for cooperation in the gas sector.

“With the existing environmental challenges, there is no doubt that an increase in the share of the ‘blue fuel’ in India’s energy mix could be crucial. We see great potential for natural gas in India with a wide variety of applications that could open new avenues for collaboration between Gazprom and Indian companies,” said Alexey Miller.

Background

The International Business Congress (IBC) is an international non-governmental and non-profit organization. The IBC consists of 123 members, including Gazprom, Deutsche Bank, ExxonMobil, ENGIE, Gasunie, J.P. Morgan Bank International, KPMG, Mitsubishi, Mizuho Bank, Siemens, Shell, Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd, Statoil, Schneider Electric, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Total, Uniper, Wintershall, CNPC, Sakhalin Energy, Srbijagas, and others.

The IBC's supreme body is the General Meeting. The 50-member Presiding Committee exercises general management. The nine-member Board of Executive Directors is responsible for operational issues.

The Congress deals with the practical aspects of economic cooperation and brings forward proposals for debottlenecking and building a favorable environment for safe and efficient entrepreneurial activities. The IBC operates through eight Working Committees: Energy; Industry, Innovations and Prospective Development; Law, Banking and Finance; Information and Communications; Ecology and Healthcare; Modern Technologies and Prospective Oil and Gas Industry Projects; Human Resources, Education and Science; and Business Security.

Srei is India’s leading infrastructure financing conglomerate.

[trendingnewsb]

The Winners Of The 2018 Sony World Photography Awards Have Been Announced

Tina Signesdottir Hult, Norway National Award

source

Martin Stranka, Czech Republic National Award

source

Andrius Kundrotas, Lithuania National Award

source

Petar Sabol, Croatia National Award

source

Brendon Cremer, South Africa National Award

source

Paranyu Pithayarungsarit, Thailand National Award

source

Pedro Jarque, Peru National Award

source

Lynn Wu, Taiwan National Award

source

Suphakaln Wongcompune, Thailand National Award

source

Wenjie Qiao, United States National Award

source

Min Ly, Cambodia National Award

source

Kyaw Win Hlaing, Myanmar National Award,

source

Ingrid Vekemans, Belgium National Award

source

Junghye Lee, South Korea National Award

source

Fajar Kristianto, Indonesia National Award

source

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2HWiDzp via Viral News HQ

[desymbol]

The Winners Of The 2018 Sony World Photography Awards Have Been Announced

The Winners Of The 2018 Sony World Photography Awards Have Been Announced

Tina Signesdottir Hult, Norway National Award

source

Martin Stranka, Czech Republic National Award

source

Andrius Kundrotas, Lithuania National Award

source

Petar Sabol, Croatia National Award

source

Brendon Cremer, South Africa National Award

source

Paranyu Pithayarungsarit, Thailand National Award

source

Pedro Jarque, Peru National Award

source

Lynn Wu, Taiwan National Award

source

Supha…

[boredpotatoblog-blog]

The Winners Of The 2018 Sony World Images Awards Have Been Introduced

The Winners Of The 2018 Sony World Images Awards Have Been Introduced

Tina Signesdottir Hult, Norway Nationwide Award

source

Martin Stranka, Czech Republic Nationwide Award

source

Andrius Kundrotas, Lithuania Nationwide Award

source

Petar Sabol, Croatia Nationwide Award

source

Brendon Cremer, South Africa Nationwide Award

source

Paranyu Pithayarungsarit, Thailand Nationwide Award

source

Pedro Jarque, Peru Nationwide Award

source

Lynn Wu, Taiwan Nationwide…

[omcik-blog]

New Post has been published on OmCik

New Post has been published on http://omcik.com/exclusive-vw-seeks-to-curb-competition-from-skoda-sources/

Exclusive: VW seeks to curb competition from Skoda - sources

BERLIN (Reuters) – Volkswagen managers and unions are seeking to curb competition from lower-cost stablemate Skoda, move some of its production to Germany and make the Czech brand pay more for shared technology, company sources told Reuters.

As VW struggles to cut jobs and spending at German factories and turn the page on dieselgate, Skoda’s superior car reviews and profitability have intensified the brands’ rivalry within the Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) empire.

VW now wants to reduce what it sees as Skoda’s unfair advantages – combining German technology with cheaper labour – and reaffirm the top-selling brand’s primacy ahead of a wave of new electric car launches, the sources said.

The tussle between VW and Skoda is reviving tensions at the heart of the Volkswagen group between profits and jobs, and between central control and autonomy for its 12 vehicle brands.

“Instead of devoting our efforts to beating Tesla (TSLA.O), we may just be setting up a futile internal conflict,” said one manager.

Once the butt of jokes, Skoda has blossomed under 26 years of VW group ownership into a successful mid-market carmaker, steadily winning business from rivals – including VW – and surpassing even Audi’s operating profit margin last year.

At the same time, VW is facing thousands of job cuts as management moves to trim excess capacity at German factories. Its powerful domestic unions see Skoda’s success as both a threat and a potential lifeline.

VW workers’ representatives are now demanding the transfer of some Skoda production to their underused German plants, a source close to the supervisory board told Reuters. The proposal aims to offset declining output of the VW Passat and ageing Golf that could otherwise threaten more jobs.

They are also making the case that Skoda should pay higher royalties to use VW’s main common vehicle platform. The so-called MQB architecture also underpins mid-sized models from the group’s Audi and SEAT brands.

Responding to the news, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said he would meet Skoda management and unions to ask for clarification.

The government will seek to ensure that VW investment plans are followed through and that “production is not moved outside the country”, a statement released by Sobotka’s office said.

Skoda’s main union warned that a production shift could cost as many as 2,000 jobs. VW’s works council declined to comment.

VW brand Chief Executive Herbert Diess is leading a parallel management effort to shield future VW models from direct competition with cheaper Skodas.

At a recent group executive committee meeting, Diess called for greater differentiation between VW and Skoda target markets and clientele, particularly for future electric models, three managers with knowledge of the matter said.

“The future positioning of brands is being looked at, but discussions are still ongoing,” a VW group spokesman said, declining further comment.

Tension is expected to rise ahead of a Nov. 17 supervisory board session due to approve annual investment budgets across the world’s biggest carmaker.

LABOUR ADVANTAGE

Automobiles for sale are seen at Serramonte Volkswagen in Colma, California, U.S., October 3, 2017. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

Skoda’s operating profit more than doubled over three years to 1.2 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in 2016, lifting its profit margin to 8.7 percent – second only to Porsche within the Volkswagen stable.

The VW brand, whose margin dipped to 1.8 percent after earnings fell by a third, still outsells Skoda globally but is growing more slowly in Europe.

Skoda’s healthy profits partly reflect the shared car platform’s economies of scale. Designed by VW engineers in Germany, MQB has been rolled out progressively since 2012.

But Skoda gets a further boost from cheaper labour. Manufacturing wages average 10.10 euros per hour in the Czech Republic, where most of its European cars are assembled, compared with 38.70 euros in German industry, according to Berlin’s official statistics office.

How VW group CEO Matthias Mueller might resolve the dispute remains unclear. The clout of the German unions, which hold half of the company’s 20 board seats, means Skoda’s success may be viewed more as a problem than a model to emulate.

The German state of Lower Saxony, which occupies another two board seats, is also preoccupied with preserving VW jobs.

Unease at VW’s Wolfsburg headquarters has been compounded by car reviews in which its models have sometimes lost face to cheaper Skoda cousins sharing the MQB platform.

The new Skoda Kodiaq sports-utility vehicle (SUV) is priced 1,500 euros ($1,765) below the VW Tiguan yet trumped the German brand in a quality survey by Auto Motor und Sport magazine. Skoda’s Superb also drew favourable comparisons with the Passat.

Skoda denies any deliberate encroachment on VW’s turf.

“We mainly attract customers from outside the VW group and that is also our mission,” brand CEO Bernhard Maier told Reuters in a interview.

ELECTRIC FUTURE

Competition for resources among VW brands is nothing new. Unions lobbied for VW to lead development of emerging-market cars, but Skoda was allowed to take charge.

Now the group’s 20 billion euro push to launch 50 electric cars by 2025 has brought tensions to a head as VW managers fear their battery-powered models may also be undercut, people with knowledge of the discussions said.

“The electric vehicle market is a new ball game where you cannot simply maintain the brands’ positioning,” said one. “Customers need to see that you are making changes.”

VW and Skoda both plan to introduce coupe-styled electric SUVs in 2020 boasting the same 500 km (300 mile) range.

Any renegotiation of platform cost-sharing could also affect each brand’s contribution to the new MEB platform being developed for electric cars.

In public, however, VW has played down the rivalry. With a combined lineup approaching 100 vehicles, brand CEO Diess said, there is always some risk of stepping on toes.

“There will always be some substitution,” he told Reuters. “But some internal competition is also helpful.”

Reporting by Andreas Cremer; Additional reporting by Jan Lopatka in Prague; Writing by Laurence Frost; Editing by David Clarke

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[nancyedimick]

When ‘there is serious reason to doubt’ rumors and allegations, is it libelous to publish them?

(Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)

BuzzFeed, as everyone now knows, has published unverified allegations about Russia having “compromising material and information on [Donald] Trump’s personal life and finances”; the allegations had been apparently included in a “classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.” This raises all sorts of important questions about national security, journalistic ethics and more. I will set those aside under Mr. Ed’s Law, since I don’t have anything helpful to add about them.

But it also raises one question that a reader asked me about, and on which I actually know something: When a publisher knows “there is serious reason to doubt” certain allegations (which BuzzFeed’s top editor expressly said), is it libelous for the publisher to pass along those allegations (assuming they ultimately prove to be factually false)? Or is the publisher free to publish them on the theory that it is accurately reporting what has been alleged, even if the allegations are not accurate? It’s unlikely that Trump, despite his talk about libel law, will actually sue BuzzFeed over this, but these questions come up often with regard to reports about accusations about lower-level public figures. And the answer is, “It’s complicated.”

1. The republication rule: Say that Alan writes, “Betty alleges Charlie committed armed robbery.” Alan’s statement is literally true: Betty did make the allegation. But the statement Alan is reporting on (Betty’s statement) is false. American libel law has long adopted the “republication rule,” under which Alan is potentially liable for defamation — if Betty’s allegation actually proves to be false — even if he expressly attributes the statement to Betty. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 578.)

And this is true even if Alan distances himself from the allegation, for instance by saying that Charlie has denied the statement, or that Betty has reason to lie. The principle is that “Tale bearers are as bad as the tale makers.”

2. The “absence of malice” / absence of negligence defense: Of course, Alan (like Betty) would still have the benefit of the First Amendment defamation defenses that the Supreme Court has crafted. For instance, if Charlie is a public official or a public figure, Alan is immune from liability unless he spoke knowing that the statement was false, or at least having “serious doubts as to the truth of” the allegation. (That’s the famous “actual malice” standard, though that term is confusing, because it doesn’t actually mean “malice.”) If Charlie is a private figure, Alan would be immune from liability if he reasonably believed the allegations.

Very often, people who are passing along such allegations do sincerely believe them, even if they are unwise to do so. If that’s true, and Charlie is a public figure or public official, then Alan is off the hook. But assume, as in the BuzzFeed situation, that Alan does indeed know that “there is serious reason to doubt” the accuracy of Betty’s charges. The “absence of malice” defense thus falls away, and we get to the really interesting stuff.

3. The fair report privilege: The republication rule can’t be the whole story, though. Say a reporter is covering a trial, in which witnesses are making assertions that the reporter knows are false, or knows are likely false; or say a reporter is reporting on some official government report. The law has long recognized that such coverage must be immune from liability, under the so-called “fair report privilege,” at least when the coverage is substantially accurate and evenhandedly summarizes the testimony. In many states, this is an absolute privilege, applicable even when the reporter knows that the statements within those proceedings are likely to be false.

The fair report privilege also generally extends beyond reports of court proceedings, to include reports of public meetings of government bodies, including legislative and executive bodies. But most cases don’t extend it to reports of nonpublic government discussions. A report of allegations included in a secret government briefing, for instance, wouldn’t qualify for this privilege (though maybe they would qualify for others).

4. The possible neutral reportage privilege: But what if the statement is outside a government proceeding? Consider this incident, from Norton v. Glenn, a 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case: William T. Glenn Sr., a city councilman, claimed that council president James B. Norton III and mayor Alan M. Wolfe were gay, implied that they were child molesters and claimed “that Norton had made homosexual advances toward Glenn which escalated to Norton grabbing Glenn’s penis.” A newspaper published an article accurately describing the charges and quoting Norton’s unequivocal denial; the newspaper didn’t endorse Glenn’s statements. Norton and Wolfe sued both the newspaper and Glenn, and the jury found that the statements were false.

Some courts would hold that the newspaper would be protected in such a case under a First Amendment “neutral reportage” privilege, because the charges themselves were newsworthy even if they were false. (Among other things, for instance, Glenn’s charges against Norton and Wolfe could be important to the public because they reflected on Glenn’s fitness for office.) Some courts have held that, “when a responsible, prominent organization … makes serious charges against a public figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges,” even when the reporter has serious doubts about the accuracy of the charges. (That’s from Edwards v. National Audubon Society (2d Cir. 1977).) And some other courts have extended this to certain charges on matters of public concern against private figures, and to statements made not just by responsible, prominent organizations but by any public figure, or even by any non-anonymous source.

There’s much to be said, I think, for the neutral reportage doctrine. The theory behind the First Amendment exception for defamation is that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” because such statements do not “materially advance[] society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate on public issues.” But sometimes the very existence of an allegation or a rumor is indeed of importance to public issues, for instance because it could affect the behavior of public officials. (If various allegations about Trump and Russia are floating around, that might lead some other leaders to be wary of Trump’s actions toward Russia, or might pressure Trump to act in particular ways just to rebut those allegations — knowing about the allegations could thus help citizens understand these reactions.) And it seems bad in a democracy when elite insiders know what rumors are swirling around, but ordinary voters are denied access to those rumors.

Nonetheless, a majority (though not an overwhelming majority) of courts that have considered the matter have rejected the neutral reportage privilege, because of the harm that false allegations — including ones passed along, rather than created in the first place, by the defendant — can cause to people’s reputations. In Norton v. Glenn, for instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Norton’s and Wolfe’s lawsuit against the paper could go forward, and the paper could be held liable if it published Glenn’s statements knowing that they were likely false; the case eventually settled for an undisclosed amount. The New York high court has also rejected the neutral reportage privilege, as have several others. And to my knowledge no court has accepted the privilege for allegations made by unnamed sources, such as in the BuzzFeed incident.

5. 47 U.S.C. § 230: But BuzzFeed and other online publishers could have another source of immunity here — the federal 47 U.S.C. § 230 statute. That statute (enacted in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act) is famous for protecting online publications from being held liable for user comments. If you write unsubstantiated rumors in the comments to this post (and please don’t!), The Post and I aren’t going to be liable; Congress chose to provide such protection because it worried that otherwise online-service providers — such as America Online, back in the day — would simply refuse to host user posts or user comments.

But the statute has generally been read quite broadly, including to online publishers’ deliberate decisions to forward particular materials. Thus, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003), Ton Cremers ran an email newsletter about allegedly stolen art; Robert Smith submitted an item that alleged that Ellen Batzel possessed a painting that had been stolen by the Nazis from its rightful owner; and Cremers deliberately chose to include the item in his newsletter and on his site. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this too was protected by § 230, because that statute broadly provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Cremers was a “user of an interactive computer service”; Smith was an “information content provider”; Cremers was therefore immune from liability for distributing Smith’s email.

Likewise, in Barrett v. Rosenthal (Cal. 2006), Ilena Rosenthal forwarded an email that she received from someone else; that email contained charges against Stephen Barrett. Barrett sued Rosenthal as well as the original sender, but the California Supreme Court held that Rosenthal was immune under § 230. The court acknowledged that this immunity was very broad (paragraph break added):

We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about … [such a] broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications.

Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet service providers or users to be sued as “distributors,” nor does it expose “active users” to liability.

So if BuzzFeed got the dossier by email, and the dossier was originally distributed by its author by email, then BuzzFeed might well be protected by § 230. BuzzFeed got material from someone else, and chose to forward it, but that’s what Cremers and Rosenthal did, and they were found to be immune. If The Post decided to print the material in its paper edition (those things still exist, right?), it wouldn’t get such immunity, since § 230 only covers online publications. But online sites get this extra statutory protection.

On the other hand, many courts might find this result quite unappealing: Not only does it completely gut the republication rule for online publications, but it gives online media outlets a huge advantage over offline media outlets, within the core of the media’s traditional function — what a publication chooses to distribute to its readers — and not just as to comments. A court might thus refuse to accept Batzel or Barrett (which are binding precedent only in 9th Circuit federal courts and in California state courts).

Also, § 230 might be inapplicable if the material came to BuzzFeed on paper rather than by email, because § 230 only applies to material “provided by another information content provider,” defined as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” That would be a weird distinction, but statutes draw weird distinctions sometimes. Indeed, § 230 might be inapplicable so long as the material was first delivered by its author to others on paper, even if it was later forwarded by email, because then (one might argue) the person “responsible … for the creation or development” of the material didn’t provide it through an “interactive computer service.”

But at the very least, § 230 would be a possible defense that BuzzFeed and other sites could use when they’re passing along a wide range of rumor or allegations, however unsubstantiated — like it or not, the Batzel and Barrett precedents so suggest.

6. The bottom line: I told you it was complicated! That just shows how ridiculously over-complicated our legal system has become, some might say. No, others might say, it just reflects the crooked timber of humanity and the inherent complexity needed in rules that deal with a complex world. I don’t make the law, I just report on it. And here the legal result would turn heavily on (at least) two contested questions — whether the jurisdiction recognizes the neutral reportage privilege and would apply it to this situation, and whether § 230 is read broadly when applied to a news site’s publishing particular material that it itself has deliberately chosen.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/when-there-is-serious-reason-to-doubt-rumors-and-allegations-is-it-libelous-to-publish-them/

[wolfandpravato]

When ‘there is serious reason to doubt’ rumors and allegations, is it libelous to publish them?

(Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)

BuzzFeed, as everyone now knows, has published unverified allegations about Russia having “compromising material and information on [Donald] Trump’s personal life and finances”; the allegations had been apparently included in a “classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump.” This raises all sorts of important questions about national security, journalistic ethics and more. I will set those aside under Mr. Ed’s Law, since I don’t have anything helpful to add about them.

But it also raises one question that a reader asked me about, and on which I actually know something: When a publisher knows “there is serious reason to doubt” certain allegations (which BuzzFeed’s top editor expressly said), is it libelous for the publisher to pass along those allegations (assuming they ultimately prove to be factually false)? Or is the publisher free to publish them on the theory that it is accurately reporting what has been alleged, even if the allegations are not accurate? It’s unlikely that Trump, despite his talk about libel law, will actually sue BuzzFeed over this, but these questions come up often with regard to reports about accusations about lower-level public figures. And the answer is, “It’s complicated.”

1. The republication rule: Say that Alan writes, “Betty alleges Charlie committed armed robbery.” Alan’s statement is literally true: Betty did make the allegation. But the statement Alan is reporting on (Betty’s statement) is false. American libel law has long adopted the “republication rule,” under which Alan is potentially liable for defamation — if Betty’s allegation actually proves to be false — even if he expressly attributes the statement to Betty. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 578.)

And this is true even if Alan distances himself from the allegation, for instance by saying that Charlie has denied the statement, or that Betty has reason to lie. The principle is that “Tale bearers are as bad as the tale makers.”

2. The “absence of malice” / absence of negligence defense: Of course, Alan (like Betty) would still have the benefit of the First Amendment defamation defenses that the Supreme Court has crafted. For instance, if Charlie is a public official or a public figure, Alan is immune from liability unless he spoke knowing that the statement was false, or at least having “serious doubts as to the truth of” the allegation. (That’s the famous “actual malice” standard, though that term is confusing, because it doesn’t actually mean “malice.”) If Charlie is a private figure, Alan would be immune from liability if he reasonably believed the allegations.

Very often, people who are passing along such allegations do sincerely believe them, even if they are unwise to do so. If that’s true, and Charlie is a public figure or public official, then Alan is off the hook. But assume, as in the BuzzFeed situation, that Alan does indeed know that “there is serious reason to doubt” the accuracy of Betty’s charges. The “absence of malice” defense thus falls away, and we get to the really interesting stuff.

3. The fair report privilege: The republication rule can’t be the whole story, though. Say a reporter is covering a trial, in which witnesses are making assertions that the reporter knows are false, or knows are likely false; or say a reporter is reporting on some official government report. The law has long recognized that such coverage must be immune from liability, under the so-called “fair report privilege,” at least when the coverage is substantially accurate and evenhandedly summarizes the testimony. In many states, this is an absolute privilege, applicable even when the reporter knows that the statements within those proceedings are likely to be false.

The fair report privilege also generally extends beyond reports of court proceedings, to include reports of public meetings of government bodies, including legislative and executive bodies. But most cases don’t extend it to reports of nonpublic government discussions. A report of allegations included in a secret government briefing, for instance, wouldn’t qualify for this privilege (though maybe they would qualify for others).

4. The possible neutral reportage privilege: But what if the statement is outside a government proceeding? Consider this incident, from Norton v. Glenn, a 2004 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case: William T. Glenn Sr., a city councilman, claimed that council president James B. Norton III and mayor Alan M. Wolfe were gay, implied that they were child molesters and claimed “that Norton had made homosexual advances toward Glenn which escalated to Norton grabbing Glenn’s penis.” A newspaper published an article accurately describing the charges and quoting Norton’s unequivocal denial; the newspaper didn’t endorse Glenn’s statements. Norton and Wolfe sued both the newspaper and Glenn, and the jury found that the statements were false.

Some courts would hold that the newspaper would be protected in such a case under a First Amendment “neutral reportage” privilege, because the charges themselves were newsworthy even if they were false. (Among other things, for instance, Glenn’s charges against Norton and Wolfe could be important to the public because they reflected on Glenn’s fitness for office.) Some courts have held that, “when a responsible, prominent organization … makes serious charges against a public figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges,” even when the reporter has serious doubts about the accuracy of the charges. (That’s from Edwards v. National Audubon Society (2d Cir. 1977).) And some other courts have extended this to certain charges on matters of public concern against private figures, and to statements made not just by responsible, prominent organizations but by any public figure, or even by any non-anonymous source.

There’s much to be said, I think, for the neutral reportage doctrine. The theory behind the First Amendment exception for defamation is that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” because such statements do not “materially advance[] society’s interest in ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate on public issues.” But sometimes the very existence of an allegation or a rumor is indeed of importance to public issues, for instance because it could affect the behavior of public officials. (If various allegations about Trump and Russia are floating around, that might lead some other leaders to be wary of Trump’s actions toward Russia, or might pressure Trump to act in particular ways just to rebut those allegations — knowing about the allegations could thus help citizens understand these reactions.) And it seems bad in a democracy when elite insiders know what rumors are swirling around, but ordinary voters are denied access to those rumors.

Nonetheless, a majority (though not an overwhelming majority) of courts that have considered the matter have rejected the neutral reportage privilege, because of the harm that false allegations — including ones passed along, rather than created in the first place, by the defendant — can cause to people’s reputations. In Norton v. Glenn, for instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Norton’s and Wolfe’s lawsuit against the paper could go forward, and the paper could be held liable if it published Glenn’s statements knowing that they were likely false; the case eventually settled for an undisclosed amount. The New York high court has also rejected the neutral reportage privilege, as have several others. And to my knowledge no court has accepted the privilege for allegations made by unnamed sources, such as in the BuzzFeed incident.

5. 47 U.S.C. § 230: But BuzzFeed and other online publishers could have another source of immunity here — the federal 47 U.S.C. § 230 statute. That statute (enacted in 1996 as part of the Communications Decency Act) is famous for protecting online publications from being held liable for user comments. If you write unsubstantiated rumors in the comments to this post (and please don’t!), The Post and I aren’t going to be liable; Congress chose to provide such protection because it worried that otherwise online-service providers — such as America Online, back in the day — would simply refuse to host user posts or user comments.

But the statute has generally been read quite broadly, including to online publishers’ deliberate decisions to forward particular materials. Thus, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003), Ton Cremers ran an email newsletter about allegedly stolen art; Robert Smith submitted an item that alleged that Ellen Batzel possessed a painting that had been stolen by the Nazis from its rightful owner; and Cremers deliberately chose to include the item in his newsletter and on his site. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this too was protected by § 230, because that statute broadly provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Cremers was a “user of an interactive computer service”; Smith was an “information content provider”; Cremers was therefore immune from liability for distributing Smith’s email.

Likewise, in Barrett v. Rosenthal (Cal. 2006), Ilena Rosenthal forwarded an email that she received from someone else; that email contained charges against Stephen Barrett. Barrett sued Rosenthal as well as the original sender, but the California Supreme Court held that Rosenthal was immune under § 230. The court acknowledged that this immunity was very broad (paragraph break added):

We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about … [such a] broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications.

Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet service providers or users to be sued as “distributors,” nor does it expose “active users” to liability.

So if BuzzFeed got the dossier by email, and the dossier was originally distributed by its author by email, then BuzzFeed might well be protected by § 230. BuzzFeed got material from someone else, and chose to forward it, but that’s what Cremers and Rosenthal did, and they were found to be immune. If The Post decided to print the material in its paper edition (those things still exist, right?), it wouldn’t get such immunity, since § 230 only covers online publications. But online sites get this extra statutory protection.

On the other hand, many courts might find this result quite unappealing: Not only does it completely gut the republication rule for online publications, but it gives online media outlets a huge advantage over offline media outlets, within the core of the media’s traditional function — what a publication chooses to distribute to its readers — and not just as to comments. A court might thus refuse to accept Batzel or Barrett (which are binding precedent only in 9th Circuit federal courts and in California state courts).

Also, § 230 might be inapplicable if the material came to BuzzFeed on paper rather than by email, because § 230 only applies to material “provided by another information content provider,” defined as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” That would be a weird distinction, but statutes draw weird distinctions sometimes. Indeed, § 230 might be inapplicable so long as the material was first delivered by its author to others on paper, even if it was later forwarded by email, because then (one might argue) the person “responsible … for the creation or development” of the material didn’t provide it through an “interactive computer service.”

But at the very least, § 230 would be a possible defense that BuzzFeed and other sites could use when they’re passing along a wide range of rumor or allegations, however unsubstantiated — like it or not, the Batzel and Barrett precedents so suggest.

6. The bottom line: I told you it was complicated! That just shows how ridiculously over-complicated our legal system has become, some might say. No, others might say, it just reflects the crooked timber of humanity and the inherent complexity needed in rules that deal with a complex world. I don’t make the law, I just report on it. And here the legal result would turn heavily on (at least) two contested questions — whether the jurisdiction recognizes the neutral reportage privilege and would apply it to this situation, and whether § 230 is read broadly when applied to a news site’s publishing particular material that it itself has deliberately chosen.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/when-there-is-serious-reason-to-doubt-rumors-and-allegations-is-it-libelous-to-publish-them/