This highly contentious defamation action arises from The Deep Rig, a documentary film concerning alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election[, which was financed by defendant Patrick Byrne, who also appeared in the film].….
asserted
who → arise → film
Plaintiff Eric Coomer formerly served as director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, a supplier of election hardware and software with its United States headquarters in Colorado.
asserted
Coomer → serve → Colorado
Among other things, the film included statements by non-party Joseph Oltmann claiming that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."
asserted
he → include → Eric
According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President Donald J. Trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it."
uncertain
he → accord → it
Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer.
asserted
speaker → determine → voice
Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.
asserted
Coomer → state → election
Coomer denies participating in any such call or manipulating the results of the 2020 Presidential election and alleges that Oltmann's story presented in the film was false and defamatory.
asserted
story → deny → film
Coomer sued, and the court earlier held that he had adequately "alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal" and to proceed to discovery.
asserted
he → sue → discovery
But then Byrne sought summary judgment, arguing that, after discovery, Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim.
uncertain
Coomer → seek → claim
And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence:
asserted
Coomer → conclude → evidence
[U]nder Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure.
asserted
plaintiff → allege → evidence
Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….
asserted
standard → concede → concern
Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election.
asserted
election → assert → election
Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true.
asserted
gist → testify → story
Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence.
uncertain
Coomer → focus → evidence
The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.
asserted
Byrne → point → story
Coomer points to circumstantial evidence that includes the improbable nature of Oltmann's allegations, the lack of independent investigation by Bryne and the lack of corroboration for Oltmann's story, published reports and opinions rebutting claims of election fraud, and Coomer's denials and other suits for defamation filed prior to the publication of the film.
uncertain
that → point → film
It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann's story was probably false and that Coomer probably did not attempt to tamper with or "rig" the 2020 Presidential election.
asserted
Coomer → conclude → election
However, the question for the jury at trial would not be whether Byrne reasonably should have reached that conclusion.
asserted
Byrne → reach → conclusion
It would be whether he did in fact reach that conclusion or at least harbored serious doubts about Oltmann's story or was highly aware it was probably false….
asserted
it → reach → story
[R]egardless of whether a finding of actual malice might be supportable under the preponderance standard, the evidence is insufficient to support the same conclusion under the much higher clear and convincing standard.
uncertain
evidence → support → standard
Byrne's lack of skepticism, failure to investigate, and disregard for government reports and conclusions by others debunking claims of fraud the 2020 election are equally consistent with negligence and a belief that there was essentially a coverup going on, in line with the grand conspiracy theory portrayed in the film.
uncertain
lack → investigate → film
Coomer points out that Byrne did not include Oltmann's story in his own book of the same title, but Byrne explained that he wanted to present an argument based on publicly available information, which, unlike a single witness's account of an unrecorded phone call, would be taken seriously as supporting a nationwide investigation.
asserted
which → point → investigation
Any inference from the totality of this evidence to a conclusion that Byrne actually disbelieved or seriously doubted Oltmann's story would be weak at best and insufficient to support a finding of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence….
asserted
Byrne → disbelieve → evidence
Allowing a jury to infer from evidence that a reasonable person would have doubted Oltmann's story to a conclusion that it is not only possible, but highly probable and free from serious or substantial doubt that Byrne, did, in fact, have serious doubts about it would require the Court to ignore not only the standards just discussed but human nature as well.
asserted
Byrne → allow → standards
The world has always had people with zealously held beliefs who are quite vocal and eager to share their views with anyone who will listen.
asserted
who → have → anyone
These people are frequently labeled, pejoratively, as extremists, fanatics, "kooks," "crazies," conspiracy theorists, and the like.
asserted
people → label → extremists
They typically have a lot to say on their subjects of interest, and modern technology has given them a powerful microphone to convey their thoughts well beyond the limits of their own communities or personal echo-chambers.
asserted
technology → have → communities
They may make statements that reasonable people consider to be wrong, and sometimes their statements are, in fact, objectively and demonstrably wrong.
uncertain
statements → make → fact
But those with zealously held beliefs hold firm even when overwhelming objective evidence may be to the contrary.
uncertain
evidence → hold → contrary
This is because they genuinely and sincerely believe what they say with every fiber of their being, even when objective evidence may suggest otherwise.
uncertain
evidence → believe → being
Many are highly intelligent and sophisticated people, but they never seriously doubt the truth of their statements and remain steadfast in their beliefs no matter what.
asserted
they → doubt → beliefs
While these speakers sometimes espouse beliefs and make statements many might consider to be extreme, offensive, irresponsible, and factually wrong, their beliefs are, nonetheless, sincerely held and those speakers believe everything they say is completely true.
uncertain
they → espouse → statements
Even aside from extreme examples, people in general are hardly paragons of reason and often do not reach or maintain their beliefs by dispassionate assessments of the evidence.
asserted
people → reach → evidence
They believe what they do, especially on important political, moral and religious issues, as a result of unconscious biases, predispositions, prior emotional, philosophical, and political commitments and intuitions, as well as a disinclination to exert the effort or risk the emotional discomfort involved in exposing themselves to contrary evidence and viewpoints.
asserted
they → believe → evidence
As John Kenneth Galbraith observed, "[f]aced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
asserted
everyone → observe → proof
Operating within an echo chamber while believing oneself to be well-informed and reasonable has become increasingly easy to do in the age of slanted news sources and targeted media constantly telling their constituencies what they want to hear.
asserted
they → operate → what
Of course, people with sincerely or even zealously held beliefs may make statements that are both untrue and inflict serious harm on others.
uncertain
that → hold → others
Under the actual malice standard, unless it can be proven that the speaker subjectively believed his or her statements to be untrue, the law imposes no liability.
asserted
law → prove → liability
That is a policy choice that might deserve reexamination by the appropriate decision makers—the United States Supreme Court and the Colorado courts.
uncertain
that → deserve → makers
…and 5 more, not listed.
The Aporia