Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

The Chinese-American Civil Rights Coalition has attracted national media attention, with former US President Donald Trump using the terms “Chinese virus”, “Chinese virus”, “Wuhan flu” and “Wuhan” A complaint was lodged.Kung flu. “ I have already written that the complaint under the First Amendment is so explicitly prohibited that sanctions under Rule 11 may be requested after the withdrawal has been rejected.

While New York District Judge John Coltel makes no mention of the sanctions, he categorically rejects them for a variety of reasons. First, he notes that as a judicial matter, “[t]He does not claim to have made any statements in New York, although he does claim that many statements were made in tweets or press conferences. Found that he has no personal qualifications.

The court then found that the case could not support the theory of group defamation. We have already discussed this theory of crime. It is very difficult to maintain such claims. that in Niemann-Marcus vs. Light (1952), a New York federal district court heard a defamation claim resulting from the publication of the book “USA Confidential”. The author wrote that “some” of the models and “all” of the saleswomen at the Niman-Marcos department store in Dallas were “telephone girls.” He also claimed that “most” of the vendors in the men’s store were “meat”. The store had 9 models, 382 female sellers and 25 sellers. The court found that the size of the women’s group was large enough to meet the standard of group slander. However, the size of the vendor group was considered small enough to go to trial.

In this case, Judge Coltel wrote:

To make a defamation claim under New York law, the plaintiff must, among other elements, make a statement that is “from and related to” the plaintiff. However, “[u]According to the doctrine of group defamation, when referring to a large group of people, no one in that group can fairly say that this statement is about him, nor can the “group” as a whole claim defamation. Thus, the doctrine of group defamation defeats the “from and related” element of defamation claims. The doctrine of group defamation can only be overcome by showing that “the terms of the publication logically conclude that there is a specific reference to the member.”

In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant described the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a “Chinese virus” and other letters. According to the plaintiff himself, this phrase refers to at least 22.9 million people. It is therefore a “reference to a large group of people” and the complainant did not show that “the terms of the publication reasonably conclude that there is a specific reference” to a particular member. Therefore, the plaintiff’s allegations cannot support the defamation claim [on behalf of its members] Under the doctrine of group defamation

The plaintiff organization also does not explicitly claim defamation on its part, given that there is no allegation in the complaint about the defendant’s statements about the plaintiff organization, and in fact the plaintiff organization was established after all the statements in the complaint were made. Has been. Apparently made. Accordingly, the complaint has no defamation allegation against the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s members.

[T]He has a plaintiff [also] Could not claim intentional or negligent emotional distress. Elements of intentional emotional distress include: “l) Extreme and cruel behavior. (2) the intentional or reckless nature of such conduct; (3) The causal relationship between behavior and the resulting harm. And (4) severe emotional distress. The same test of extreme and cruel behavior has been applied to the causes of action to create negligence emotional distress. The development of emotional distress negligence may also be claimed under the “observer” theory, when a person is “threatened with bodily harm as a result of the negligence of the accused.”[,] And as a result … from seeing the death or serious bodily injury of a close family member, he suffers mental trauma. Or in the “direct duty” theory, when the plaintiff “suffers emotional damage as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty, which irrationally endangers his or her physical security.” …

As a matter of fact, the plaintiff’s allegations of intentional and negligent emotional distress fail because they are based on the same allegations that slander him. Therefore, the claim of defamation is repetitive and should be rejected accordingly.

The claim of intentionally imposing emotional distress fails for another reason that the plaintiff’s alleged behavior is not so extreme or cruel as to cover up the crime of intentionally imposing emotional distress. The statements in question referred to the geographical origin of the virus, rather than the responsibility of millions of Asian Americans who had nothing to do with the virus. To fall into the realm of crime, behavior must be “barbaric in nature, and to such an extent that it goes beyond all possible limits of decency, and in a civilized society it is regarded as heinous and utterly intolerable.” Opinions in this regard are even short of language that the courts have found to be extreme or offensive enough to support a claim of emotional distress.

The allegation of negligence of emotional distress fails because the alleged behavior does not reach the level of extreme and cruel behavior that has been found to be sufficient to justify responsibility, and the plaintiff has not been able to make sufficient claims to justify the “observer” claim. The theory or theory of “direct duty”….

The Court also finds that all of these protected statements are under the First Amendment:

Finally, the plaintiff’s allegations of intentional or negligent incitement to emotional distress fail for another reason that violates the imposition of liability for the claims of the First Amendment. that in Snyder vs. Phelps (2011), the Supreme Court stated that even in cases where extreme and oppressive speech on a subject of public concern causes another emotional distress, the First Amendment prohibits reparation in a civil damages action for intentionally causing emotional distress. Slowly “In the public debate [we] “It must endure insulting and even offensive remarks in order to provide sufficient ‘breathing space’ for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” No matter how unfortunate the plaintiff’s statements are, the First Amendment prohibits civil liability for such statements rather than the right to a free and strong debate on matters of public concern, the source of which is the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Is, be protected. ….

I’m still worried about making such complaints as press releases with legal headlines attached. This lawsuit had judicial and constitutional forms from the beginning.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.