Breaking: NY Phil oboe sues for $100m
OrchestrasLiang Wang, suspended principal oboe of the New York Philharmonic, today filed suit against New York Magazine/Vox and reporter Sammy Sussman, claiming $100 million in punitive damages.
The substance of the suit is this: ‘The article (by Sussman on April 12) attempts to reinforce the allegation of drugging, as against Wang, by misleadingly implying that (horn player Cara) Kizer and the Philharmonic accused Wang of drugging her, when in actuality, neither did. The arbitration decision that Sussman claimed to have reviewed is abundantly clear that Wang faced no such accusation from either Kizer or the Philharmonic… In point of fact, Kizer never accused Wang of drugging or doing anything else to her.’
The case has been filed in Federal court, in the Southern District of New York.
The basis of the damages claim is ‘catastrophic harm to reputation’ and loss of earnings. It concludes: ‘The article, although false, caused Wang to instantly become a pariah. Within days of its publication, nearly every position Wang occupies or relationship he has in the world of classical music—all built up over several decades—was severed. Worst of all, although Wang has been a member of the Philharmonic since 2006, the publication of the false article resulted in his immediate suspension from performing or rehearsing with the Philharmonic—or even entering its building.’
I bet Slavko Popovic is taking notes. Lol. Can you say they be compensating for something?
Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation.
Bring it, rapist scum. Discovery is going to be AMAZING. Can’t wait to see what we dig up!
Please explain why you just publicly called Liang Wang “rapist scum.” Do you possess any discovery yourself? Sound a bit like defamation.
If I’m defaming anyone, sue me.
Can you sue yourself?
You can’t be serious. If you are, you are a HUUGGE problem.
How am I the huge problem? I’m not the one raping.
‘Bout time.
If ’bout time you meant ’bout time that he was brought to justice and has to face charges for drugging and raping a woman then yes, ’bout bloody time. Maybe now Kizer will finally get her day in court and this scum will get what he deserves.
Except he wasn’t the one who allegedly raped her.
But you know, raped, got confused with somebody who raped, got confused with somebody who might or might not have raped – wouldn’t you say they’re all equal grounds for losing you jobs?
You are about to be profoundly disappointed.
Sometimes the media will not let the facts get in the way of a juicy story. If that is the case here I hope New York Magazine/Vox and reporter Sammy Sussman get taken sued into oblivion. I can’t imagine much worse that being falsify accused of something like that.
Musicians are the types of people that would never apologize to someone that has been falsely accused. They would simply be frustrated with the fact that they were wrong. Disgusting bunch really.
Painting an entire profession with a pretty broad brush aren’t you, Matheiu.
Exactly how many musicians do you actually know that justifies your conclusion?
Literally Slavko Popovic. His career is over now but he’s probably concocting a revenge fantasy.
What is worse is being drugged and raped.
What is worse is being drugged and raped by colleagues who keep their jobs while you lose yours after they drug and rape you.
What is worse is being drugged and raped and not believed, and then having to live with your rapist and the people who aided or protected him not being held accountable.
A hundred million dollars? His reputation was never worth anything near that. What hubris.
“I can’t imagine much worse that being falsify accused of something like that.” One example would be being drugged raped and watching the perpetrators get away with it. Watching them get a big pay off as well, would only make it much worse. So why see it from just one side?
Can’t imagine worse? What about the actions he’s accused of? I’d say if those happened to you, you’d think it was quite a bit worse than being accused of something
Falsly? He was already sacked from the orchestra years ago for it and was reinstated only because of the pressure from the syndicate. He’s guilty and playing with fire thinking nothing bad can come his way. If there’s any justice he should be behind bars.
A hundred milion? That’s oscene.
Once upon a time, women were seldom believed, if ever. Today, men are seldom believed, if ever. Maybe all personal interactions now should be filmed by body-cams.
Some very high-level lawyers have advised that video proof of all participating parties giving consent on video. We are living in crazy times where social media has everyone on a witch hunt. Anyone can literally ruin someone’s life simply because they don’t like their face or is jealous of their playing.
Which “high level lawyers” would that be? Please provide a citation. This “high level lawyer” would like to know.
We are living in a time when there is more accountability for one’s depraved actions. May it continue.
The ‘actual malice’ standard as espoused by the Supreme Court of the United States of America means that the bar for proving a newspaper defamed someone is extremely high and in reality nearly impossible to pass. Quite independently of whether he’s guilty, he probably has no chance because it’ll be very hard to prove the magazine in question defamed him with intention and willful disregard for the facts, even if the facts are proven to be wrong. (not taking sides on his guilt here whatsoever.)
You are confused. The “actual malice” standard from MY v. Sullivan is for public officials, not private individuals.
The bigger problem is that truth is an absolute defense to libel.
mk, the case was New York vs Sullivan. Rather than a belligerent claim about who is confused, why don’t we look at an excerpt from an article here https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-actual-malice-standard-explained/
“In every defamation case, a plaintiff needs to prove four things in order to win:
That the allegedly defaming statement(s) in question conveyed facts (as opposed to pure opinion);
That the facts it stated or implied were false;
That the statement was delivered to others; and
That the plaintiff was harmed.
In an “actual malice” case, a plaintiff must prove even more: that the defendant either knew that the statement was false at the time, or else demonstrated “reckless disregard” as to its falsity. To help demonstrate reckless disregard, plaintiffs can show that defendants were aware of facts that make clear they simply did not care about the truth of the statement in question. That includes evidence that defendants relied on sources they knew to be unreliable or had an ulterior motive for publishing the statement.”
NY v Sullivan is about a public official. Even the link you cite makes that distinction. An oboist in an orchestra isn’t a public figure. And frankly, NyMag/Vulture won’t need to prove that he is in order to get out from this lawsuit.
And truth clearly is not on his side.
It’s interesting that a defamation case has finally entered this fray. I have wondered about the absence of one, for some time.
“Neither Muckey nor Wang would speak to me for this story, and a spokesperson for the New York Philharmonic wrote in an email that he could not respond to questions about Kizer’s time in the orchestra. The account that follows is based on interviews with Kizer, her friends and colleagues, and law-enforcement officials. I also reviewed more than 200 pages of documents from the Vail Police Department and Colorado’s Fifth Judicial District Attorney’s Office.”
The above statement was made by Sammy Sussman, in the article.
It will also be interesting to see whether Wang’s case will hold up, should it be true that he was given the opportunity to comment for the article, but declined to do so.
Doesn’t matter if he declined. Irrelevant.
Would’ve waited to see the outcome maybe you would’ve been reinstated. The money is not worth it. To get a lot of money as a thrill. To play the New York philharmonic is soulful feeling. The two can’t compare. You’ll be more miserable with the money. You shouldn’t have listened to the greedy attorneys You acted too soon. Again, you should’ve waited for the investigation to conclude instead, you ran to these greedy attorneys that screwed your life even worse.
The media is the virus
That’s what both the fascists and the commies say.
Lawyers are the only parties set to reap a financial windfall from all of this. There is no case. The journalist made no implicit representation that Kizer and the NY Phil had accused Wang of drugging her or were the grounds for his original termination. The article explicitly states that in the course of the initial independent investigation, “extensive documentary evidence” revealed “unrelated allegations of sexual misconduct against Wang”. At the arbitrary hearing, “other alleged victims” – in addition to Kizer – provided testimony. If any inference were to be drawn from the presentation of these facts, it’s that there were other bad acts uncovered from the investigation – which the NY Phil has refused to publicly disclose – which led to Wang’s termination.
Wang was unwilling to speak to the journalist. The NY Phil has not revealed the evidence and findings of the independent investigation. For all the adversarial and antagonist dimensions to the circumstances that Wang and the orchestra currently find themselves facing, they have remained aligned together with one incredibly consequential objective – the prevention of any transparent presentation of evidentiary fact.
To that end, the only good to potentially come from this the lawsuit would be the release of factual evidence that had been obtained during the initial investigation. I would also be interested in what might be found during discovery – inappropriate sexual conduct is a repeatable pattern of predatory behavior, and it would not come as any surprise should additional acts of an unacceptable nature be uncovered with the other musical organizations that immediately terminated their long-term relationships with Mr. Wang.
In the photo that acccompanies this article, is that a reed or a syringe that is being held up?
“by misleadingly implying that (horn player Cara) Kizer and the Philharmonic accused Wang of drugging her” Where in the article was this implied? Here is the relevant part: “Kizer alleged that Wang brought her a glass of red wine. Wang later told the police that Kizer got her own wine.” Does Wang dispute that “Kizer alleged Wang brought her a glass of red wine”? Sussman did imply the wine was drugged, but he did not imply anything about who (Muckey or Wang) drugged the wine.
This is laughable.
To win a defamation lawsuit, you have to go well beyond proving that what was said was false.
And what exactly is he really claiming was false? The article tells Kizer’s story and allegations about being drugged and raped. There’s no dispute that she had sex; what is disputed is if the sex was consensual and if she was drugged.
Kizer claims that the sex was not consensual and points to evidence, such as the tampon.
Kizer believes she has evidence that she was drugged; the article makes clear that evidence is inclusive. But that doesn’t mean it lacks merit to be mentioned in the article.
Wang claims that the arbitration decision essentially exonerated him of the allegations as if he had been charged with a crime and then acquitted by a jury or judge. That decision is not a legal ruling on Wang’s guilt. It’s one perspective that is included.
Let’s continue.
After demonstrating that someone lied, you need to show that there wasn’t a legitimate effort to tell the truth, such as fact checking the story. Newspapers lose defamation lawsuits when they print something false and there was little to no attempt to fact check it. And what’s key here is an attempt. Even if Kizer was a liar who duped Vulture, so long as they made a reasonable effort to fact check what she said, then they’re in the clear.
The story contains quotes from various individuals and the police report. The writer even talked to a forensic toxicologist about the drugging allegation. It looks like they did a thorough job of attempting to verify the veracity of Kizer’s allegations. I’m sure Vulture’s attorneys expected a defamation lawsuit and required the writer and editors to go above and beyond in their fact checking.
Finally, because Wang is a public figure, he has to demonstrate actual malice — there needs to be a smoking gun where the writer said that they wrote the article to destroy Wang’s life because they hate him. This is very hard to prove and why so few public figures win defamation lawsuits. The writer’s stated motivation could have been that they wanted to expose Wang as a rapist and see them held accountable — that is not actual malice.
Wang is following a very old playbook: do a lot of sabering rattle to try and force a settlement, and point to that as exoneration. And in the short term, try to keep his reputation intact by saying that the allegations are so false that he’s suing for $100 million.
Thinking a bit more, he’s the main reason Wang won’t ever take this as far as depositions:
To establish that the orchestra placed Wang on leave because of the article, he has to ask the orchestra what influence the article had on their decision. That opens the door to the orchestras to bring up everything they already knew about Wang. Not only could that help further convince Wang’s peers and colleagues that he’s a rapist, but it could even help verify the claims in the article that he’s arguing are false. And of course, the NYP will not hesitate to use the lawsuit as an excuse to take a huge dump on Wang.
The tampon is evidence of sexual contact. It is not evidence of rape. The internet is filled with articles from medical providers answering the question “What do i do if i forgot i had a tampon in,” including during sex.
The hair sample does not prove a time frame for GHB, and also does not prove who administered it. The sample was taken and sent to a lab 7 months later, according to Sussman’s article. Sussman apparently did not interview the lab, and does not mention any quantitative number. GHB is naturally produced in the body in tiny amounts, which shows in hair samples. So what must be shown is whether the hair sample showed a SPIKE in GHB, not just presence of GHB. Here’s a 2020 study from the FBI that explains this https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/44/7/637/5880598#
This study from Rome suggests that GHB spikes cannot be accurately determined in hair samples more than 5 months after exposure https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/dta.3423
This does not prove Wang innocent, but it does make it clear that there is no firm evidence ruling out that Cara had consensual sex with Muckey, and and no evidence at all that Wang did anything at all, unless there is evidence that has not yet been disclosed to the public. Doesn’t mean they didnt do it but it does mean it cannot be proven unless there is other evidence. Since the arbitration hearing resulted in both men being reinstated, and no other evidence was mentioned in Sussman’s article, Wang’s lawsuit may very well have merit.
You’re missing the point.
It is not defamatory for a newspaper to print someone’s rape allegation against an individual so long as they make a reasonable effort to fact check the claim, which this story clearly does.
In fact, I’d argue that Vulture provided way more supporting evidence than many articles on Hollywood #metoo accusations.
Good luck to Wang arguing that they acted recklessly.
I love how sexual abuse and rape cases bring people to so easily out themselves as idiots.
I disagree that Wang is a “public figure”. The rest that you write is good.
Through his own self-aggrandizing about being a world-renowned oboists he has establish himself as a public figure.
Lol! No. That’s not how anything works.
Here is the key paragraph from the article:
“Jacobs [the 20-year veteran detective] spoke with six Philharmonic musicians and staff … with one male colleague stating that Muckey and Wang “think everything in the world is theirs for the taking.” Jacobs asked whether they would be capable of drugging someone to commit a crime. “Yes,” the man replied, ‘I could see that.’ ”
First of all: Clearly, the reporter is quoting the detective who quotes in term a Philharmonic male colleague, who is in fact the one actually making the accusation that Wang was capable of drugging Kizer.
Second of all: Wang’s complaint is wrong on the facts, because nowhere in the article does the reporter state or even imply that it was either Kizer or the Philharmonic that accused Wang of drugging her, it was another Philharmonic player.
Third, there is no one to sue: Wang can’t sue the anonymous “male colleague” because he didn’t make the accusation to the press, he made it privately to the detective in the course of an official criminal investigation. Wang can’t sue the detective because that accusation is a statement made that is part of the official investigation. Wang can’t sue the reporter/NY Magazine because they were citing a fact from the official police investigation.
Finally, the complaint’s misstatement and the insistence on the arbitration decision are red herrings to draw attention away from other potential evidence against Wang: the Philharmonic’s independent review by a former federal judge, and the detective’s police investigation, Muckey’s deposition during discovery if he doesn’t take the Fifth, and whatever else discovery will dig up, if the case isn’t dismissed outright in short order.
Hope he wins the suit. It’s time for men to finally speak up against baseless accusations.
Not a baseless accusation my any stretch of the imagination.
If someone is accused of something, both sides must be heard before publicizing any judgment.
And they were. Which is why Wang and Muckey were fired in the first place, after a thorough investigation and hearing, before the union forced the orchestra to take them back. You seem to have missed that key part.
Barbara Jones did a terrible investigation. She was hired to get rid of those guys because of a fake reporter (probably one of the toxic feminists on the internet who Cara lied to) who impersonated a reporter to scared the Philharmonic into initiating a witch hunt investigation. The arbitration is where the full story came out and Wang came out victorious.
This’ll make for a great fund raising campaign to replenish all those dolla’-dolla’ bills siphoned away from the NY Phil’s ever-diminishing endowment. I can hear it now: “Here at the New York Philharmonic, we do our very best to provide safe working conditions and a living wage so that our talented sexual predators and rapists can just have a place to make music and indulge in their personal conquests. Please give today so that these extraordinary individuals can live a simple, peaceful life of debauchery and degeneracy, safe from the prying eyes of accountability. Any donation, no matter how small, will help keep this tradition alive and ensure no abuser is left out in the cold or goes to bed hungry. Give today.”
The Philharmonic isn’t the one being sued here.
Not yet. Give it time;)
He’d better hope there’s not a single shred of evidence in discovery. If there’s a text, an email, a quote, ANYTHING, he’s done.
Suing for only $100 million? That doesn’t leave much after attorney fees.
What this thread has shown is a huge heap of prejudice on both sides; ‘he’s a man so he must have committed the offence’, ‘women are never believed’, ‘he hasn’t done anything wrong’ etc etc.
This is only a civil suit, the quantum of proof being merely ‘the preponderance of evidence’ – in other words, whose story is more likely to be true.
What Wang was accused of is a heinous criminal offence; is any criminal case pending? I would be astonished to find that the crime alleged against him had not been reported to the police. So far, he has faced trial only by SD, while the civil suit has not even left the starting block. While opinions posted here are fascinating, I prefer those of judge and jury.
So – I am for the abstentions at this point; any of those who posted opinions for or against the plaintiff would certainly be able to get themselves discharged from jury service in this matter!
What does it matter that there’s a criminal case pending? Lots of criminal matters are never adjudicated for various reasons. But that doesn’t stop various people and organizations from taking adverse action against individuals who are suspected of having engaged in criminal action, such as your employer.
Lang was investigated by the orchestra and the findings resulted in his termination.
The people who work with Lang, members of the orchestra and union, believe the allegations and want nothing to do with him.
Believe *what* allegations? The allegation that Wang drugged a colleague?
Because various people on this thread defend the magazine by saying that’s not an allegation the magazine actually made. And if the magazine didn’t make the allegation, and Wang’s team is saying quite publicly that Cara and the NYP never accused him, and the (later overturned) suspension was about something else entirely, how does this narrative even exist?
You wrote: “The people who work with Lang, members of the orchestra and union, believe the allegations and want nothing to do with him.”
Except there are many photos of him with members of the Phil hanging out together in private settings over the past few years (after he was reinstated). Parties at homes, restaurants, etc… So, obviously there were/are people willing to continue their friendship with him.
You are innocent until proven guilty in this country.
There is no doubt the article has damaged his reputation and jeopardizes his career and livelihood. But unless he and his lawyers can prove the magazine knew what it wrote was false, he’s not going to win. What’s not clear to me is whether Wang qualifies as a public figure, where the bar to win would be higher. The amount sought is just a headline.
You say ‘…unless he and his lawyers can prove the magazine knew what it wrote was false, he’s not going to win.’ Surely not. Showing what someone knew calls for the reading of their minds. It matters not a jot what what the magazine’s publishers thought.
This is a civil action so it’s for the plaintiff to show two things:
1. That the reports were untrue, and
2. That they caused reputational and possibly financial losses.
If he can show both of these, then he wins the case and gets financial recompense. The only other matter would be to determine the quantum of damages. $100,000,000 might seem extravagant by UK standards, but I believe that it’s not remarkable in the USA. However, it’s my understanding that if he won, then the reporter would be personally liable to settle the claim. If he had that kind of money, I doubt that he would be working as a journalist! If not, then he could pay only as much as he had; the most the plaintiff would get was all the defendant was worth, which might have to be obtained by forcing his bankruptcy if the judgement exceeded his personal wealth. While he is suing just the reporter, I guess that there might be vicarious liability of the magazine that published the article too.
Whatever is the case, I doubt that the total wealth of the magazine and reporter won’t be anything near the $100,000,000 claimed. Thus the adage: ‘Never sue a man of straw’.
What you said is factually wrong.
As I noted in my post, winning a defamation claim goes beyond proving that the statements were untrue.
You additionally have to show that the statements were reckless printed, meaning that no reasonable attempt was made to verify their veracity.
Further, because Wang is a public figure, he also has to show that the newspaper acted with actual malice.
As for the reporter, the magazine’s insurance would cover them because they wrote the article under their direction and in their capacity as an employee.
The one thing I’m not clear about is whether Wang qualifies as a public figure. He’s definitely a prominent person in the classical music world, but not particularly in the wider world.
And does a case by itself make one a public figure. If you are not well known but then an article that libels you MAKES you a public figure, do you then count as a public figure to meet the NYT v. Sullivan test?
Most comments seem to miss out on the main thing: This is not going to be a complicated issue of “she says / he says”.
He argues that the publication claims that he did things of which he had not been accused. That’s simply a matter of compairing documents.
He might or might not have done a host of bad things – it all seem to be irrelevant to this particular case.
If he is so free of wrongdoing why doesn’t Mr. Munckey help clear his good name…..?
He doesn’t need to… her test results that she sought 7 months later only showed a slight spike in the range endogenous to human production. Negative drug test. Case closed.
It may indeed be true that “…the arbitration decision that Sussman claimed to have reviewed is abundantly clear that Wang faced no such accusation from either Kizer or the Philharmonic…”
It has the air of the narrowly true statements that litigation lawyers craft for public release.
But it seems to sidestep the reality that Sussman’s article was based on *other* sources including police documents and his own interviews with involved people.
Sussman may need only to file “I wrote that A B and C said X Y and Z. Here are the records of A B and C saying X Y and Z” and this suit will either be dismissed or settled for way less than the headline figure.
Come to me and repent. We need more love and forgiveness and less assaults and mob-lynchings
Good! Time to fight back.
What’s a likely settlement at the end of this? $30 million?
I’m just curious: even more damning than the article for Wang professionally was how certain semi-public figures with popular Facebook profiles ran with the story and quickly resorted to calling Wang and Muckey rapists though the article never explicitly says so definitively. Very quickly they became proxies for larger systemic problems in the field and “had to pay.” So my question: would the writer of the original article be more likely liable for that development, or the Facebook folks who ran with the narrative? This is a legal question only, not a statement of support on any side.
Cue the saddest song on the world’s tiniest oboe.
I could see him getting up to maybe five million in settlement, he might have earned that in a long career, perhaps. The whole thing seemed dubious. Why would these two guys have done together what they are accused of? They’d have to be extremely close, intimate, degenerate, or on drugs themselves. It’s very fishy.
Not guilty until proven otherwise by the court of law. Go Liang. Let the big guys taste their own hypocrisy.
well, good luck with trying to get 100 million. Note that he isn’t suing over the whole article, or the accusation of sexual assault. He is suing specifically about the wording of the article, who exactly suggested that the alleged victim might have been drugged. It’s very specific, maybe so he won’t be in a situation where he would have to perjure himself. The lawyers hone in on the one thing that might have been wrong in the article and wasn’t correctly fact-checked. They might have a case, but I doubt this will be worth such sky-high punitive damages. 100 million? He didn’t have that big of a career. This is an attempt to bolster his reputation a little bit and to do something.
Other than that Wang was present at the scene during the earlier part of that evening, there is no evidence whatever that ties Wang to any criminal action. The victim claims she woke up the next morning in bed with Muckey, and she had no memory of what had transpired – other than that she recalls accepting a drink which she assumes was spiked. Now, if all you haters in your rush to condemnation want to theorize that Muckey told Wang “You have your way with her and then leave so that I can spend the night with her” that’s a dead giveaway as to your intelligence level.