Sounds like this is (somewhat) the approach the Kyle estate is taking in appealing the decision as an infringement of the First Amendment.

 

Experts say free speech at stake in 'American Sniper' appeal

 

This is interesting.

 

The 12 First Amendment scholars wrote in their friend-of-the-court brief that U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle, who is no relation to Chris Kyle, gave the jury bad instructions. Courts have acknowledged that the "actual malice" standard can be hard for juries to grasp because it doesn't mean malice in the conventional sense. The scholars said "well-intentioned courts" often recast it into simpler language, but getting it right is essential to preserving First Amendment protections.

 

In this case, they wrote, the judge did not make clear that Ventura had to prove that Kyle actually believed his statements were false or that Kyle actually had serious doubts about their truth when he made them.

 

So, basically the standard is that Ventura has to prove that Kyle knew what he was saying was false, not simply that what he said was false? But, considering what he said and how it involved both men, wouldn't proving it to be false also prove Kyle knew it was false?

FWIW he never names him in the book...I think when asked on Leno or Letterman if it was Ventura he just smiled and nodded his head. I don't see how he could attach to any profits from the book or movie since he is never named, just called "Old Scruff Face"

Kyle's kids/family will need that $ way more than Ventura.

Used to like Ventura, but a few things he has done makes me think of him as a jerk.

Kyle's kids/family will need that $ way more than Ventura.

 

Chris Kyle had a net worth of $2 million just before publishing American Sniper. Then the book went on to make over $8 million between 2012 and 2014. I couldn't find any actual numbers for sales after the movie was released on Christmas in 2014, but apparently the bump resulting from the movie's release put 2015 book sales on course to double all previous sales. Also, I'm not sure how much of a take his estate was making from the movie, but the movie made $547 million in theaters, and another $58 million in recorded sales.

 

Conversely, Jessee Ventura is worth an estimated $6 million.

 

I'm not saying Ventura needs the money (I agreed with you previously that Ventura should donate the money from the settlement to Wounded Warriors or something similar)...but at the same time, I'm not particularly feeling like Kyle's wife and kids are struggling for cash here.

Agree that the judge should have ordered the award be made as a donation to WWP. Ventura is a loud mouth jerk.

Don't believe a judge has that type of power in this kind of case. Now if it were a fine he probably could.

I could be wrong but I think profits from the book were already going to a charity for vets.

I'm struggling to see why people are upset at Ventura over this. If Kyle lied about the incident, and there clearly was enough evidence to suggest he did so, then he, not Ventura was in the wrong here.

I could be wrong but I think profits from the book were already going to a charity for vets.

 

Chris Kyle claimed in interviews that all the profits were going to charity, but when his claims were fact-checked, they found that he was only giving a small portion of the profits to charity. It's been a while since I read up on it, but if memory serves, something like $50K of the first $2 million in book profits (which was the current total at the time of the report I read) was given to charity...which comes to 2.5% of the profits.

This is interesting.

 

 

 

So, basically the standard is that Ventura has to prove that Kyle knew what he was saying was false, not simply that what he said was false? But, considering what he said and how it involved both men, wouldn't proving it to be false also prove Kyle knew it was false?

 

Ventura is a public figure. Therefore it is a higher burden of proof for him to show that Kyle libeled him in the book. The reason that it is higher than if you or I were in there is b/c, as a Public Figure, Ventura has access to medium that allow him to refute these claims that you and I would never have. So, the actual standard for "Actual Malice" is A. Knowledge that it was false or B. that is published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Since Kyle was one of the parties supposedly involved in the altercation, part B has no bearing on him. That is more for reporters who hear something terrible and really should fact check, but just throw it out there. So, in short, you are correct. If Kyle knew this to be false, i.e., he didn't actually punch Ventura, then Ventura can fulfill the "Actual Malice" standard.

Yet he never named Ventura in the book..

I'd like to see the facts of the actual case.

Yet he never named Ventura in the book..

I'd like to see the facts of the actual case.

 

But he did subsequently....

 

I'm really at a loss as to why people are outraged at Ventura over this.

But he did subsequently....

 

I'm really at a loss as to why people are outraged at Ventura over this.

 

Agreed. I also get a kick out of the media and much of American society at large ignoring the fact that Chris Kyle fairly regularly lied about things after gaining his semi-celebrity status following his military career.

 

Was Chris Kyle a hero? Yes.

 

Did he repeatedly overly-embellish and lie about his actions? Yes.

 

Should that detract from his character? Yes.

But he did subsequently....

 

I'm really at a loss as to why people are outraged at Ventura over this.

 

I'm not outraged, but I wouldn't sue the estate and widow of a dead man that caused me no actual harm either.

 

I wonder if the case would have went differently if Kyle was alive to tell his side of the story in court?