Brimelow v. New York Times Company

Background

Peter Brimelow sued The New York Times Company for libel based on five articles published between January 2019 and May 2020. The articles discussed Brimelow, his book Alien Nation, and VDARE, a website he founded and edited. Brimelow alleged that the articles falsely portrayed him or VDARE as “white nationalist,” “white supremacist,” or “anti-Semitic.” He sought actual and punitive damages and costs. The Times moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Because the case was based on diversity of citizenship, the court applied New York law. Under that law, a defamation claim requires, among other things, a false defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff, the required level of fault, and resulting harm. Because Brimelow was treated as a public figure suing a media defendant, he also had to plausibly allege “actual malice”—that The Times knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

The January Article

The court distinguished between the article’s original description of Brimelow as an “open white nationalist” and its later description of him as a “white nationalist.” The original wording could be understood as a factual and verifiable statement about whether Brimelow publicly identified himself that way. The later wording, viewed in the article’s context and alongside a hyperlink to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s page about Brimelow, was an opinion because “white nationalist” has a loose and varying meaning and the article provided a basis for the characterization.

The court also concluded that The Times had potentially republished the Southern Poverty Law Center’s characterization by adopting it and sharing it with a new audience, rather than merely linking to the outside material. But the court held that the republished characterization was protected opinion. Separately, Brimelow did not plausibly allege actual malice. The court found that The Times could reasonably have characterized his views based on his public writings, public commentary, and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s analysis. The court dismissed the first cause of action.

The August and September Articles

The August Article reported on a VDARE blog post and quoted or attributed descriptions of VDARE from other people and organizations. The September Article referred to a blog post containing an anti-Semitic reference and stated that it came from a website that regularly publishes white nationalists. The court held that these descriptions were opinions rather than provably false facts. It also held that the challenged references to VDARE’s blog post were not statements “of and concerning” Brimelow because the articles did not name him and a post by another VDARE writer did not necessarily reflect his personal views.

The court did not decide whether the articles’ broader descriptions of VDARE might be “of and concerning” Brimelow because the claims failed on other grounds. It also held that Brimelow had not plausibly alleged actual malice. The court dismissed the second and third causes of action.

The November Article

The November Article discussed Stephen Miller and his alleged intellectual ties to white nationalism. It identified Brimelow as VDARE’s founder and quoted statements he had made, which the court found were factually accurate. The article’s descriptions of VDARE as a “hate website,” “white supremacist website,” or “white nationalist organization” were attributed to sources or were opinions. The court likewise treated references to Brimelow’s views as “white nationalist thinking” as opinion and found no plausible allegation of actual malice. The court dismissed the fourth cause of action.

The May Article

The May Article republished a Reuters article about Facebook’s removal of accounts allegedly connected to VDARE and involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior. The court held that the statements concerned Facebook’s findings, not The Times’s independent assertions, and that Brimelow had not shown that the statements referred to him personally. The court also held that descriptions of VDARE as a “white supremacist site” were opinions and that The Times, as a verbatim republisher of Reuters’s article, had no pleaded reason to question Reuters’s accuracy or good faith.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted The New York Times Company’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in full. The court dismissed all five causes of action, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and adjourned dates, and ordered the case closed.