our case forward at least under the rule twelve standard which is the only standard that's before the court here today and there are two substantial reasons why the district court got this wrong and why are cases one that headline on the initial lead in to the article of talked about a state vendor being charged criminally they know our sons immediately called attention to kara levon that  vendor it has been updated in these or carry leavens words verbatim it has been updated to reflect that the chargers charges involved the state vendors former manager not the dealership and in fact they the on the end corrected link we're focusing on two different uncorrected things your honor that and the district court said that was it worsened over say that's right and let me it let me address that what's our standard view of that is that i think that's new law creative audit created out of whole cloth your honor the fact that if you can a new law st amendment new law are well what once you're out once you're on notice a statement is false and here where you've agreed it's false certainly that you know a fact finder at the end of the day might not agree with us or with kara levin when they said yes we publish something false we're fixing it but what they did was they re published and twice once once by leaving the facebook post up but also in a separate article the complaint clearly alleges in a separate article in early november on their website they put a question then is it is that a factual finding is that a legal conclusion why do we how do we review that i think it's a legal conclusion because actual malice and the district court got this exactly right doesn't require a showing of ill will  aura and the definitions really only are basically one element targets are one element standard it's either they knew or they exercised reckless disregard and failing to find out now are negligence they just didn't  well you said it's an issue of law what's an issue of look what if this issue of law here is that we know it was an oversight we have alleged that in november now carol haven't knew because we told them that we review that what's our standard review we look at whether you know do we get a dictionary out and see what they say about oversight or do we say on this whole record that we district court was right or wrong had actual malice with a let me let me put it this way and see if this announcer adequately addresses your question as of november they knew that it was false to say state vendor charged with a crime they said that they said we've said that incorrectly before and we're fixing it once they know that and now they publish again state under a charge with a crime there they meet the order test and the actual malice is there they knew it has to be actual malice but that doesn't mean ill will once you know something is false and you publish it you're taking now you're quoting from what's from who are decent and according from the minnesota sure it doesn't have to be ill will but the absence of ill will is pretty pretty telling so what were you pointing me to and it is you're going to get as i would have thought this was a fairly a question of federal law depositions we don't know if they're going to say where were the district court got the idea that it was mere oversight we don't know it's not in the record thank you in this complaint that would suggest that any of the alleged false statements here were made either knowingly or did with a reckless disregard in other words plausible allegation republication a plausible allegation because there's no there's no plausible allegation that goes that would suggest that this was anything but an oversight then then it fails no no come on then it fails i mean you're here taking it well and throwing out rule a without argument no not at all your honor in other words there has to be this is because this is an actual malice case there have to be allegations in the complaint that would plausibly suggest that carole levon intended to convey to the public something that was fal or something that was that they entertain serious doubts as to you don't they get you there when they when they knew it and there's at least you know there's an inference that they consciously disregarded when they republished the lank or or put out the link with the with the wrong wrong link well let me go back to just a couple of points here honor so the link that was to be clear what happened here was there is a website story and there's a facebook story both of those in the nd line of this is join appendix and twenty five dollars thirty cents both of those identified the vendor that's being talked out here as gerry warner the fleet manager and that shows up in the district court's opinion so in the in the very publication itself carol evan identifies the vendor that they're talking about it's in the it's the subheading of the st page and it's also in the text of the article itself so did they have to issue a correction no they probably didn't have to have to issue a correction but we started from the document itself and that's critical because as as this court has said in other cases you consider the you consider the fa allegedly false statement in the context in which it's made and you also consider the documents that are embraced by the pleadings which is the article itself and in the article itself it identifies the vendor as jerry warner former fleet manager of nelson auto so it's we're starting from the plane here starting from the wrong proposition it's starting from the proposition that the original article was knowingly false and it's just not true there's there's no basis for that in the article itself now what happened apparently was this the article the correction it provides evidence well the correction just says ben and then the defendant admits that the use of the word vendor was probably legally imprecise in the sense that bender can mean different things bender could mean some of your argument what it what is the fact of the correction the fact of the correction and several that that is jerry warner and not nelson auto and that was also clear from a fair reading of the article without correction you can tell from the subheading you can tell from the text of the article it's in joint appendix twenty five through thirty it identifies j warner as the person that the talking about so why did they issue the correction your honor they did and i don't i don't know why it's even phrased as a correction but it is but that's what happens and then the article about what we're talking about rule why doesn't it why isn't the data plausible inference of actual malice or assertion allegation because it wasn't republished that's the point you won't find the word republication in this brief for the facebook the facebook page was left up that was the problem they only corrected one of the sites and not the other that's what the that's what the allegations are and what they're complaining about is that in november of two thousand and seventeen the republicans allow don't we need some discovery on whether widen the reason for that because there are no because maybe it's because the reporter convinced the editor that this was really a bad guy and you can correct maybe don't correct it all because there are no plausible allegations that that's what occurred and it's not allegations that it was something more than being wrong why is it a why is it any more plausible that this this which is an oversight there needs to be an some allegation that there was a motive that there was some intent that there there is no well if you want to call a clear and convincing standard for to fight it it's as clear and convincing standard but the fact of the matter is there is no allegation of anything about why kara levin would have been motivated to do this why how kara levin knew it was doing this in a way in other words there has to be something other than the fact that it happened that's all they're arguing the original the original post was left up and it happened and there is no inference that can be drawn a logical inference that can be drawn from that that that was actual malice there has to be more it's not a there have to be plausible allegations that it was left up for some particular reason whether it was i mean i don't know i don't know what the motivation would be but certainly there's nothing pled about this and that's what the district court was referring to and the district court again i come back to this to this point the district court hinged its decision both on the fact that the article itself and the headline talk about clarify that it's that it's mr warner who is the target of the criminal charges and i  think that's important that the correction further clarifies that but the article itself contains the statement that the charges against the former fleet manager jerry warner so the two principles that i think are really critical from an out analytical standpoint here are number one it is the this is a subjective analysis and in a sense you look at the subject intent of the the media here what are the allegations about the subjective intent there are no plausible allegations about the subject of intent here that would suggest that they were motivated by  by some means to to mislead the public or to make a false statement and then the nd principle which i think is critical for the court to take into account is that it the court has to consider the documents that are in raised by the pleadings and that would include both of the cover of the facebook page i'm not sure how that's probably not using the right social media terminology but it's the very st page where it says specifically this is the former fleet manager and then the body of the article itself which says that it's identifies them as sherry warner all of that negates intent all of that negates actual malice and in the face of that  uncontroverted material that negates actual malice there is no plausible allegation made that would contradict that and that's or thank you public showing the original wrong article and the simple question is why and to reach the conclusion that it was negligence or overlooked we don't know that there hasn't been discovery nd about you know i want to get to the point that  eating cover in your original opening which was the body of the article is absolutely accurate yes vender was imprecise but the body of the i think you can see that the body of the article identified the particular fleet manager who was in engaged in this behavior so look at and if it's in compass by the pleadings we can look at the article itself or the article itself as i recall the original article mentioned that meant to the fleet manager i think i think their original article wasn't the original web article wasn't preserved but yes haven't mentioned the fleet manager in the original article and certainly didn't the original facebook and our position on that is simply they only a part probably their correction was one that they made candidly before they talk to their lawyers about should we admit this is incorrect but they admitted it was incorrect and i think we get to go forward and find out why the last point i would make the paragraphs twenty through twenty three of the complaint talk about how this appeared to be a continued vendetta and how you have to read seventeen pages into their investigative article to see all of the dealership wasn't charged and so i think that i think there's a lot of evidence to be discovered here as to what their state of mind as and i think we should be permitted to go forward and do that thank you very much