James Edwards is the creator and host
of “The Political Cesspool” radio show and website. His program in on the
Liberty News Radio Network. He published these principles on the show’s
website:
“The Political Cesspool
Radio Program stands for the The Dispossessed Majority. We represent a
philosophy that is pro-White.”
“We wish to revive the
White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the
percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.”
“America would not be a
prosperous land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans.... You
can’t have a First World nation with a Third World population.”
Edwards frequently has guests such as
David Duke and others with connections to white nationalist views on his show. Duke
has written for The Political Cesspool’s blog, including, a post that discussed
the “Jewish extremist takeover of America.”
Edwards has a strong ideological
viewpoint, he voices this viewpoint on the show, and he highlights this through
several of the show’s frequent guests, including Duke and Sam Dickson, Jr.
(who has represented Ku Klux Klan members in court in the past.) Both have been on
the radio show dozens of times.
On March 17, 2016, The Detroit News published an opinion
piece by Bankole Thompson in its “Think” section. The piece was titled, “Jewish
leaders fear Trump presidency.” The piece centered on concerns expressed by
Detroit-area Jewish leaders regarding the involvement of white supremacists
during the 2016 presidential campaign. In the piece, Thompson made the
following assertion:
Of particular note to some
in the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has
received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards, David Duke and
Thomas Robb, the national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in
Arkansas.
I underlined “its leaders” because
that was the crux of Edwards’ defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. He is
not a formal leader of any white supremacist group, so technically, the
statement is false—and if it’s false, it can be defamatory (leading to
damages).
A Michigan court dismissed the
lawsuit. In pertinent part, the court said:
Edwards is correct in the
narrow sense that one meaning of “leader” includes being “[t]he foremost or
most eminent member” of a group. Thus, one plausible inference could be that
Edwards, like Duke and Robb, had an official role with the Ku Klux Klan. Yet,
Edwards is incorrect in a more fundamental sense because the term can be used
and understood more broadly—e.g., a leader may be someone who “guides others in
action or opinion,” “one who takes the lead in any ... movement,” “one who is
‘followed’ by disciples or adherents,” or “in [a] wider sense, a person of
eminent position and influence.” None of these latter meanings necessarily
implies official affiliation with a particular group.
Considering the multiple
meanings that “leader” can have, we do not read the sentence to imply
necessarily that Edwards must have held some official, designated leadership
role in the Ku Klux Klan.
The court added this key conclusion:
Mindful of Aesop’s lesson,
“A man is known by the company he keeps,” we hold that Edwards cannot make
claims of defamation or invasion of privacy and affirm summary disposition in
favor of defendants.
***
Why is this important? Pay attention
to Nick Sandmann’s (Sandmann is pictured above) $250 million libel lawsuit
against the Washington Post. (Editorial comment: The larger one’s claims for
damages, the more likely it means it’s a publicity stunt.) Pay attention to Justice
Clarence Thomas’s highly unusual opinion this week, seeking to open the
floodgates of libel lawsuits against newspapers (Editorial comment: He was, and
continues to be, hounded by media that sided with Anita Hill, and did not offer
Thomas any “himpathy”.) Pay attention to President Trump’s similar call to open
the floodgates for more libel lawsuits. One final editorial comment for the
right: Treat the First Amendment with the same regard as the Second Amendment.
If you are going to protect a person’s right to accumulate weapons for a mass
shooting, don’t let painful, even untruthful, words mushroom into $250 million
lawsuits.
No comments:
Post a Comment