Case 0:17-cv-60426-UU Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2018 Page 20 of 22 (1) publishes an accurate and disinterested report, (2) of serious charges against a public figure, (3) by a responsible, prominent organization, and (4) does not espouse or endorse the organization’s statement. Id. at 120. New York law does not recognize this privilege. Indeed, New York courts have roundly rejected Edwards as contrary to the policy underpinning the fair report privilege and contrary to Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., Hogan, 84 A.D.2d at 478–79 (“We now hold that the rule of Edwards v. National Audubon Society does not apply in this department.”), aff’d, 58 N.Y.2d 630; Weiner v. Doubleday & Co., 74 N.Y.2d 586, 594, (N.Y. 1989) (“Indeed, in Hogan . . . we rejected a claim that a “neutral reporting” privilege should be extended to a newspaper that published an objective report of newsworthy charges with proper attribution to source.). In rejecting Edwards the court in Hogan explained, The Supreme Court has not adopted Edwards . . . and in our view it is not possible to reconcile it with that court’s prior decision in [Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)]. The unequivocal holding of Gertz is that a publisher’s immunity is based upon the status of the plaintiff, not the subject matter of the publication. Presumably, all publications of the news media are newsworthy. They are not privileged, however, unless the publisher is free of culpable conduct under the standards stated in New York Times v Sullivan [376 U.S. 254 (1964)], Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and, in New York, Chapadeau v Utica ObserverDispatch [38 NY2d 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975)]. 84 A.D.2d at 479. Additionally, the court explained, “[t]he privilege was extended and given constitutional status solely because the court perceived informational value to the public in the publication of the charges; they were newsworthy.” Id. at 478. Because the Court agrees with Defendants that New York law applies to their asserted privileges, and because New York law does not recognize the neutral report privilege, Defendants may not claim its protection under New York law. B. Neutral Report Privilege Under the United States’ Constitution 20