3 ms·

> Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after

> Bryant did not sue after the articles were published in April 2022, and, in fact, the statute of limitations on defamation claims in Mississippi lapses after one year. But in February 2023, the CEO of Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, mischaracterized the reporting at a journalism conference in Miami. > In May 2023 — a few days after the Pulitzer announcement — Quin sent Mississippi Today a notice of his intention to sue, citing the “embezzlement” remark. Why are the journalists in trouble if the lawsuit is about something the CEO said?

Dalewyn 2y ago
The lawsuit is demanding to see the sources to prove that the former governor did not embezzle as was claimed by the CEO. The sources are held by the journalists. The journalists will face prison if they do not comply with the court order to turn over their sources.
- echohack5 2y ago
  And the journalists know if they reveal their sources that the people behind them will subsequently have their lives destroyed by the powerful.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  But why sue the journalists and not the CEO only? She made the remarks. Why are other journalists who didn't make the remarks afraid of going to jail: "If one of us goes to jail, we will be the first person to go to jail in the Mississippi welfare scandal"? I guess the key here is the he wants to show that it was done with malice. It seems, unlike in other countries/jurisdictions, a defamation lawsuit requires proving malice. So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. So what gives, does the governor feel pretty confident he is innocent and sources won't show anything? What if he sources reveal he did embezzle? Or, does he know the source materials already, and what's in them, if someone leaked them to him or his lawyers, and now he wants to open them up in a legal way to be used as evidence. Can't say, "we found outside the court house, they feel of the truck".
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >But why sue the journalists They are not being sued as far as I can tell. The lawsuit is against the CEO and her company (Mississippi Today), but the court has ordered the sources to be turned over and that is held by the journalists who face prison if they do not comply with the court. >So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. Knowingly lying can arguably be an act of malice, especially if your job description is about reporting the facts. Thus the demand to see the sources, which given the argument isn't entirely unreasonable but obviously conflicts with keeping sources in confidence. We'll see what the higher courts say, I guess.
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      > They are not being sued as far as I can tell. The lawsuit is against the CEO and her company (Mississippi Today) Oh I see now. They mentioned "one of us going to prison" but I think that's probably just to make a point.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > They are not being sued as far as I can tell. They are, in fact, being sued. The reporter named in the article is Anna Wolfe, the editor is Adam Ganucheau, the CEO is Mary Margaret White; the named defendants in Bryant's lawsuit [0] are Deep South Today d/b/a Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, Adam Ganucheau & Anna Wolfe. [0] PDF: https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-01-03-Bryant-v.-White-document-120-1.pdf https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024...
      - rdtsc 2y ago
        Thanks for the reference. That looks like a civil complaint. I doubt they'll realistically face prison for it as they implied. But was probably said to make a point. Noticed they demanded a jury trial. I guess his lawyer feels pretty confident the guy is either innocent (seems doubtful) or that they'll be able to get a jury to go along ideological party lines.

Dalewyn 2y ago

The lawsuit is demanding to see the sources to prove that the former governor did not embezzle as was claimed by the CEO. The sources are held by the journalists. The journalists will face prison if they do not comply with the court order to turn over their sources.

echohack5 2y ago
And the journalists know if they reveal their sources that the people behind them will subsequently have their lives destroyed by the powerful.
rdtsc 2y ago
But why sue the journalists and not the CEO only? She made the remarks. Why are other journalists who didn't make the remarks afraid of going to jail: "If one of us goes to jail, we will be the first person to go to jail in the Mississippi welfare scandal"? I guess the key here is the he wants to show that it was done with malice. It seems, unlike in other countries/jurisdictions, a defamation lawsuit requires proving malice. So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. So what gives, does the governor feel pretty confident he is innocent and sources won't show anything? What if he sources reveal he did embezzle? Or, does he know the source materials already, and what's in them, if someone leaked them to him or his lawyers, and now he wants to open them up in a legal way to be used as evidence. Can't say, "we found outside the court house, they feel of the truck".
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >But why sue the journalists They are not being sued as far as I can tell. The lawsuit is against the CEO and her company (Mississippi Today), but the court has ordered the sources to be turned over and that is held by the journalists who face prison if they do not comply with the court. >So one way to prove it would be to show that whatever sources the journalists had definitely did not indicate the governor was embezzling, but the CEO claimed he did. Therefore, she did it with malice? It's quite complicated to follow. Knowingly lying can arguably be an act of malice, especially if your job description is about reporting the facts. Thus the demand to see the sources, which given the argument isn't entirely unreasonable but obviously conflicts with keeping sources in confidence. We'll see what the higher courts say, I guess.
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    > They are not being sued as far as I can tell. The lawsuit is against the CEO and her company (Mississippi Today) Oh I see now. They mentioned "one of us going to prison" but I think that's probably just to make a point.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > They are not being sued as far as I can tell. They are, in fact, being sued. The reporter named in the article is Anna Wolfe, the editor is Adam Ganucheau, the CEO is Mary Margaret White; the named defendants in Bryant's lawsuit [0] are Deep South Today d/b/a Mississippi Today, Mary Margaret White, Adam Ganucheau & Anna Wolfe. [0] PDF: https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-01-03-Bryant-v.-White-document-120-1.pdf https://www.mississippifreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024...
    - rdtsc 2y ago
      Thanks for the reference. That looks like a civil complaint. I doubt they'll realistically face prison for it as they implied. But was probably said to make a point. Noticed they demanded a jury trial. I guess his lawyer feels pretty confident the guy is either innocent (seems doubtful) or that they'll be able to get a jury to go along ideological party lines.