Harvard Law Prof, New York Times Both Claim a Win in Defamation Suit's Withdrawal
The professor said through a lawyer that he had "achieved everything he set about to accomplish," while the Times said that we "chose not to enter into a settlement agreement but instead decided to make minor changes in the lead [of the article]" while noting that "as we were about to file a motion to dismiss, Professor Lessig withdrew his suit, before a judge was able to assess the suit's merits."
April 13, 2020 at 07:26 PM
5 minute read
Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig on Monday dropped his federal defamation lawsuit and public battle with The New York Times, 11 days after the Times made changes to a 2019 story that Lessig argued had falsely portrayed him as trying to defend the practice of MIT accepting money donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"Professor Lessig is voluntarily dismissing this action, without prejudice, in light of the defendants' decision to correct the offending publication [article] at issue, making it clear that Professor Lessig never defended MIT for taking, or advocated other institutions of higher learning to take, money from Jeffrey Epstein, even if anonymously," said Lessig's one-paragraph "Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal Without Prejudice," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by his attorney, Howard Cooper, a Todd & Weld partner in Boston.
But even as the lawsuit apparently came to an end—and as Lessig was quoted Monday in The Hill indicating that he was satisfied enough with the article changes to move on from his suit—the two sides put out somewhat different takes on the article's alterations and on what may have been the impetus for Lessig dropping the suit.
In an email Monday, Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said, "We chose not to enter into a settlement agreement but instead decided to make minor changes in the lead [of the 2019 article] so that it more fully captures what the story says, and we are now using our original print headline on the online version of the story."
Rhoades Ha further noted that "as we were about to file a motion to dismiss [Lessig's Jan. 13-filed lawsuit], Professor Lessig withdrew his suit, before a judge was able to assess the suit's merits."
Cooper, meanwhile, said in an email Monday that "Professor Lessig achieved everything he set about to accomplish when the defendants on their own chose last week to correct the errors in the headline and story they published rather than respond to the lawsuit."
"I think this was a smart move on their part," Cooper continued. He added that "for Professor Lessig, this is now a teachable moment which demonstrates the importance of standing up to and demanding accuracy from even a journalistic outlet you admire and otherwise support. The truth matters."
The article that sparked Lessig's defamation suit ran last September on the Times' website and then in print. Its original website headline read, "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret."
The story began with the following sentences, "It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying."
The Times article focused on a 3,500-word essay that Lessig had written for the online publication, Medium, about an MIT friend of his, who'd played a key role—as part of the university's donations apparatus—in accepting Epstein's money.
The friend, Joichi Ito, who has since resigned as director of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had reportedly come to Lessig early on after Epstein had contacted him and as he was considering whether to take donations from the financier, according to Lessig's original Sept. 8, 2019, Medium essay about that matter.
In part of the essay, Lessig had reasoned that institutions should avoid accepting money from scorned figures and criminals such as Epstein but that, if they did, the donor should be anonymous.
Lessig, who currently has about 358,000 Twitter followers, soon followed the Times' September article with another Medium post in which he argued that The Times had engaged in "clickbait defamation" by using an inaccurate headline and opening that he believed was meant to get readers to click on the story.
"Whatever else my [original] essay from a week ago was doing, it was not my trying to 'defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,'" Lessig argued in the follow-up Medium post. "Instead, the essay said taking money from Epstein was wrong," he added.
He further wrote that in the original essay he "is not defending. It [the essay] is attacking. It is not arguing that Joi did something right. It's attacking the scapegoating" that he believes happened to Ito after his role in accepting Epstein's donations became public in a New Yorker article.
On April 2, The Times published an editor's note below its Sept. 14, 2019, article that read, in part, "The lead has been edited to reflect that while Mr. Lessig defended Joichi Ito, who had accepted anonymous donations from Jeffrey Epstein, he said he would prefer that institutions not accept such money. The headline has also been changed, and this version of the article now has the same headline as in the print edition of The Times."
The print headline, now used for the online story, reads, "What Are the Ethics of Taking Tainted Funds?"
Lessig on Monday told The Hill, "I don't think we should be suing papers except in the most extreme cases, but on the other hand I think newspapers have to make sure that if they're going to start selling ads on the basis of the click-throughs from headlines, they need to continue to make sure that their headlines are accurate and fair."
He also said that he still admires The New York Times and views it is as an important institution.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Hunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
14-State Coalition Sues TikTok, Alleging Addictive Algorithms Trigger Mental Health Harms in Adolescents
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250