From the Daily Telegraph, one of the biggest papers in Great Britain:
We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.
We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.
Go here to read the rest. The difference between this and what is printed about the Trumps in this country: Because of Supreme Court decisions regarding libel and defamation, the media in this country can pretty much print or say anything about a public figure, and unless actual malice on the part of the publication is proven, a hard thing to accomplish in court, the public figure has no effective remedy. When the mainstream media in this country complain about fake news, they know what they are talking about, as they are masters at it. In regard to non-public figures, like the Covington students, no actual malice need be shown, except in the case of punitive damages. Here endeth the lesson.
If it wasn’t for fake news, they’d have no news at all.
It’s all 88% democrat/liberal fan fiction and propaganda, as Yogi Berra would say.
Twain, “If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you read the newspapers, you are misinformed.” True then, more true now.
What was amusing about the apology is that it appears every salient datum in the article in question was false. The author was aspirant fellatrix Nina Burleigh. Ms. Burleigh has been making a living at journalism for 30 years. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
Don’t hire Nina Burleigh?
Basic (dumb?) legal question: What can the Covington students win apart from legal damages? i.e. What can they get if they are unable to prove malice?
“What can the Covington students win apart from legal damages? i.e. What can they get if they are unable to prove malice?”
They can get economic damages and attorney’s fees without proving malice. If they prove malice they can get punitive damages. Under Kentucky law accusations of criminal behavior constitute defamation per se and actual economic damages do not have to be proven. Some of the early accounts accused the students of mob action so defamation per se may be in play.
A lot of the small fry who might be included in litigation made threats that went well beyond defamation. They could be sued civilly for these threats and potentially they could face criminal prosecution.