Criticisms of Epoch Times Were Substantially True or Opinion, Not Libel

Judge Lance Walker (D.) has made today’s ruling. Me.) In Cheng v. NeumannThis seems to me right:

Plaintiff Epoch Group, Inc. … is a New York corporation that publishes the online newspaper the Epoch Times. New York resident, Dana Cheng. Additionally, she is an officer at Epoch Group as well as a founding member of the Epoch Times.

Maine People’s Alliance, a Maine corporation that publishes The Online Media Outlet. Beacon. Maine resident Dan Neumann writes for the Beacon. The 16.06.2021 is the date of this event. Beacon published an article written by Neumann and titled “Maine GOP hosts speaker present at Jan. 6 Capitol Assault” …. It described how Gray Republican Town Committee of Maine and the Christian Civic League organized an event in Maine featuring a livestreamed address from Cheng.

Cheng was featured in the Article’s top image. The article also identified Cheng as a “far-right media personality” and “a conspiracy theorist.” Cheng stated that she had been among former President Donald Trump’s supporters at the Jan. riot at U.S. Capitol. 6.” 6 Epoch Times “Right-wing media company and multilingual newspaper”

These opprobrious epithets were supported by the Article who paraphrased or quoted Cheng’s comments during her livestreams with the Grey Republicans as well as during a radio interview that was aired recently on Denver radio station KLZ560 AM. The podcast is available at the Kim Monson Radio Show. According to the article, Cheng said that January 6, 2017 violence was not perpetrated nor by Trump supporters.

Referring to the Epoch TimesDefendants stated that its media content included articles asking about the outcomes of the 2020 elections, promoting antivaccine misinformation and promoting conspiracy theories like the QAnon. According to Defendants, the New York Times it has been described as Epoch Times a “global-scale misinformation machine.” They also quoted Cheng’s remarks about the Grey Republicans.

Cheng’s statements were initially characterized by the defendants “reminiscent of Red Scare”, because Cheng asserts that communist plotters are at “the top ranks of U.S. Government, academia, and media.” Cheng said that there were “some”. New York Times Reporters used to be part of the Chinese Communist Party media.” The “mainstream media” has been “greatly influenced and influenced by communist propaganda.”

Defendants further reported that Epoch Times Robert Mercer, a far-right media financier, partially funds the publication. The publication was however, withdrawn. Beacon A correction was issued stating that Mercer’s employee, and not himself, contributed to the incident. Epoch Times….

Cheng alleges that the Article’s characterizations of her as a “far-right media personality” and “conspiracy theorist” present “at the riot at the U.S. Capitol” were false and defamatory, and that the Article falsely characterized statements Cheng made during her radio-podcast appearance with Kim Monson…. Epoch Group claims that the Article’s description of Cheng was defamatory. Epoch Times as a “far-right” newspaper that was funded by Robert Mercer and promoted misinformation about vaccines, QAnon, and the 2020 election was false and defamatory….

The Plaintiffs failed to meet the strict malice standard. With the exception of Robert Mercer’s statement, they could not show a basis for inferring that the allegedly libelous statements were both false and statements of facts (element 1). {The Article claims that Robert Mercer funded the Epoch Times. This is a “minor error.”[y]”whose absence would not change the Article’s overall message about Dana Cheng, the Epoch Times and so cannot support their claim for defamation.} Because they are true, some of the statements that are being challenged are ineligible for defamation. This category includes Defendants[‘]Cheng’s appearance at the Capitol on January 6, and Cheng’s statements during Kim Monson Show. According to the defendants, Cheng was at the Capitol riot on January 6. She did not go into the Capitol building. Cheng later admitted that the incident had been caused by anti-fascist activists. In the evidence before me, it is clear that the Defendants are lying. According to Plaintiffs’ radio interview transcript, Cheng stated that she was present at Capitol during the break-in. Cheng also claimed that there were evidence that antifascists were involved in the violence. While Plaintiffs could dispute the Article’s description, or any negative inference Plaintiffs may have been led to believe by Defendants, they can not dispute the accuracy of the reporting.

Concerning the description by Defendants of Cheng (a far-right conspiracytheorist) and as the “The” Cheng Epoch Times‘ as a promoter of right-wing ideas, assuming that these aspersions falsely malign Plaintiffs’ media activity, the statements nevertheless were not statements of “fact” but rather commentary about what the facts in the article suggested to Defendants and might suggest to an objective outsider….

Let me begin by describing the defendants’ view of the Epoch Time Promoter of specific ideas. The fact is that the Epoch Times Articles that refute the current scientific view on vaccination have been published. They also report on the QAnon theory. These articles, while not necessarily promoting those views, are designed to foster and encourage patronage from readers with heterodox viewpoints.

Accordingly, the Article was amended to reflect the fact that the Defendants had reported the following: Epoch Times “Promoted antivaccine misinformation, and. . . QAnon” they gave the reader an interpretation of facts existing in the publication record Epoch Times, i.e.That the Epoch Times Published articles to appeal to patrons that question the effectiveness of vaccine programs and the legitimacy for the 2020 election. Also published articles not concerned with the reliability of purported leaks of national security posted anonymously to online message boards. It is possible to get in touch with us if you have any questions. Epoch TimesReporting in this manner is not “promotion”, as Plaintiffs claim. It can be considered reporting that doesles out alternative narratives to satisfy market demand. In the eyes of objective observers, such conduct could be considered “promotion”.

Similarly, to the extent that Plaintiffs argue for a more nuanced reading of the challenged statements—that ascribing to the Epoch Times an anti-vaccine or pro-QAnon worldview is not just a factual statement regarding the paper’s contents, but an implicit characterization of the paper as irresponsible or disreputable—their claim fares no better. It only reinforces what I’ve been arguing. This type of journalistic viewpoint isn’t a statement about fact. The reader can believe or deny the subjective descriptions of Defendants in his/her own mind. This phenomenon is well-known for being metaphysical. A jury verdict is not a way to prove the truth.


The Article describes Cheng, a far-right conspiracist and conspiracy theorist. Epoch Times It is a right-wing media outlet. This is why it’s understandable that journalists and media outlets would find these insulting comments offensive. Rhetorical hyperbole and “vigorous epithets”, however, are not applicable when the publication’s content makes it obvious to the “reasonable reader” or listener that the accusation was based on an individual surmise.[e] facts.”

This is it. Despite being offensive to Plaintiffs the name calling was an expression that lacked “precise understanding” and was clearly packaged to communicate to the reader author’s opinion on the importance of statements in the Article. News analysis, whether it is true or false, often uses a lot of English to convey an ideology and ensure market viability. Philosophy will be able to answer the question of whether such practices can help bring our species closer toward truth. Supporting a claim for defamation isn’t enough.

The Epoch TimesQAnon appeals to readers as more than a conspiracy theory. Its appeal to anti-vaccine readers invites for critical comment from people who think these perspectives are outlandish or offensive. No matter the appropriate political label, readers of these views have adopted it as an informal description of them. It is used to distinguish them from those who are influenced by left-leaning conspiracy theorists. The right-wing label is used to communicate with Defendants as well as their readers. However, it may be a poor-quality caricature that does not accurately reflect the objectives of media. Epoch Times Dana Cheng.

Media’s use of terms like conspiracy theorist and right-wing is an expression of times and political culture, regardless of whether they are epistemologically sound. This is because the meaning of these words comes from “the wider social context and surroundings,” which indicates to readers that what’s being read is more than just a statement. The reason is that the Epoch Times has published media content with a tendency towards excite or pander so-called rightwing sentiment. The defendants’ use of these labels by the defense to describe not just the Epoch Times Dana Cheng and also itself. Epoch Times founder and a media participant in her own right who characterizes mainstream American media as communist-influenced, falls under the protection of New York law governing the use of hyperbolic rhetoric and vigorous epithets concerning persons and topics of public interest….