Category Archives: Libel

A libel suit by Smartmatic, a voting machine company, began Sept. 26, 2024 against Newsmax, a right-wing cable news channel. The  company says NewsMax broadcast claims about vote-rigging in the 2020 election that its  editors knew were false.

The case is one of a set of voting machine company cases, the first of which was settled in April, 2023, with a $787.5 million payment by Fox News to Dominion Voting Machines. The settlement let Fox avoid a full scale trial and the embarrassment of testimony that would have shown pandering to weird  conspiracy theorists.

A similar Smartmatic lawsuit against Fox News will probably go to trial in 2o25 in New York.  And a trial by Dominion voting machines against Newsmax is clearing the pre-trial stages in a Delaware court.  Texts by Newsmax editors have been released to Dominion.

MORE 

Newsmax Defamation Case Over 2020 Election Is Set to Begin, New York Times, Sept. 26, 2024.

Smartmatic’s case against Newsmax will test 2020 defamation claims, Washington Post, Sept. 20, 2024.

US Dominion Inc v Newsmax Media Inc., Denial of motion to dismiss, Superior Court of Delaware, June 16, 2022.

US climate scientist Michael Mann won his longstanding libel suit against right-wing climate deniers on Feb. 8, 2024, with a jury award of $1 million in puntive damages. 

The lawsuit began in 2012, when Mann accused Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a contributor to National Review, of defamation when they alleged that his work was so fraudulent it was like child molestation.     

Scientists see  the verdict “as a warning to those who attack scientists working in controversial fields, including climate science and public health,” according to  Nature magazine.   

The question in libel is whether the defendant knowingly published a falsehood or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.  In testimony,  Simberg and Steyn both insisted that they do not agree with Mann’s climate science, so the question was whether or not they were reckless.

“The trial transported observers back to 2012, the heyday of the blogosphere and an era of rancorous polemics over the existence of global warming, what the psychology researcher and climate misinformation blogger John Cook called “a feral time,” said a New York Times article.

A federal court opinion from 2016  located here: Competitive Enterprise Institute v Mann.   The 2024 decision is not yet on Nexis, SCOTUS blog, or other legal sources. Also see Alito Dissent from denial of cert, 2021.

Alex Jones (Wikipedia).

Alex Jones is bankrupt. The host and owner of  the far-right fake news conspiracy-peddling website “Infowars.com” owed $1.5 billion dollars by the end of 2022 to people harmed by his lies about  the massacre at an elementary school in Sandy Hook CT a decade beforehand.

The cascade of losses in libel suits began with a Texas jury’s Aug. 5, 2022 decision to award  $50 million in actual and punitive damages to parents of the massacre’s victims. Four more libel suits  in Texas and Connecticut also ended with guilty verdicts and heavy fines.

Jones’ lies about Sandy Hook began within hours of the massacre, and were frequently  repeated since then. He falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre of 2012 was a hoax and  that the parents of the children killed  at the school were “crisis actors.”  As a result, Sandy Hook parents were subjected to harassment and other damages, on top of the profound grief of losing their children. One family has had to move 10 times to avoid Jones’ followers.

Jones’ attorneys argued that the First Amendment protects his right to make mistakes and that other people, not Jones, were to blame for the harassment.

But it’s too late for that argument. Jones already lost the first Texas libel suit by refusing to cooperate with the court, and default judgments were issued.  The only question in the Texas case and others involves the amount of damages.  Continue reading →

The last time a sitting president sued a newspaper for libel, laughter broke out on the floor of the US Senate.

That was December 15, 1908, when president Teddy Roosevelt sued the  New York World  newspaper after it linked him to corruption over the Panama Canal. Roosevelt ordered federal attorneys to file criminal libel suits against newspapers  all over the country. Democrats were outraged, once they stopped laughing.  One US attorney resigned in protest rather than prosecute Teddy’s critics for libel.

The main target of the suits, New York World newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer, famously said:  “He cannot muzzle the World.”  (See Pulitzer’s Reply Dec. 16, 1908)

Roosevelt’s lawsuit,  US v Press Publishing,  used to be considered the “last gasp” of seditious libel.

The US Supreme Court didn’t think much of the suit, handing down a ruling  in 1911 that was only two pages long. The ruling ignored the merits of the case and simply sustained an objection by Press Publishing (the owner of the NY World)  that “the court has no jurisdiction in this case, because there is no statute of the United States authorizing the prosecution.”

The case was thought to be a First Amendment landmark at the time, but it is barely remembered in communications law textbooks today.  After all, what sitting president would lower himself to file such a suit?  Even outright allegations of murder did not tempt President Bill Clinton to wield that cudgel against critics like Jerry Falwell. What president would be so foolish as to sue for libel just because a newspaper published a disagreeable opinion?

Which brings us to Donald Trump, the president who defied expectations. Tump  sued the New York Times  on Feb. 26, 2020, and the Washington Post, on March  3, 2020, for  an apparently disagreeable opinion about Trump’s relationship with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In the suit, Trump claimed that the Times knowingly published the supposedly false charge that there was a “quid pro quo” with the Russians in return for  their help in the 2016 election.  (The plaintiff’s petition can be read here.) 

This “quid pro quo” was described in  an op-ed written by former New York Times editor Max Frankel and published March 27, 2019.  In the op-ed, Frankel rejected  small concerns about “collusion” with Russia in the Trump campaign. The much larger issue, he said, involved the relationship between Trump and Putin.

(UPDATE: The story continues but the court dismissed Trump’s lawsuit in March, 2021).
Continue reading →

In a victory for First Amendment advocates,  a federal court ruled Dec. 19, 2018  that news articles about the Steel Dossier, which alleges illegal and immoral acts by Donald Trump and his campaign in 2016, were protected by the “privilege” defense against defamation suits.

The dossier (memo) was written by former British Intelligence head of the Russia desk, Christopher Steele and circulated in the months before and after the November 2016 election.   It was  published  January 10, 2017, by BuzzFeed News with the headline:   These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties to Russia.

BuzzFeed cautioned that the dossier  “includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians.”

Although the major subject of the dossier was Donald Trump and his attorneys and advisors, the suit was filed by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian whose name was peripheral to the events described in the dossier.     

In her ruling, federal judge Ursula Ungaro of  Miami granted a motion by Buzzfeed magazine to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the press was protected by the legal doctrine of  fair report privilege.   

Privilege is one of three major defenses against libel suits. (The other two are truth and fair comment).   The defense of privilege gives journalists the ability to report on official government proceedings whether or not information in the proceedings is provably true or not.   The doctrine of privilege allows unfettered news reporting of conflicting ideas or versions of events that may surface in trials, executive memos or congressional hearings.

According to a Columbia University Global Freedom of Expression article,  the decision turned on the question of whether the report was an official proceeding.  In many cases, courts have interpreted proceedings to be official whether or not they are open to the public.

Oleg Deripaska totally missed the point of US libel law. (Hint: It doesnt exist to punish the critics of the rich and the corrupt).

A libel suit by a Russian billionaire got booted out of federal court Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017.

Oleg Deripaskaha had sued the Associated Press for exposing his links  to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

US  District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said  the suit  “cherry-picked sentences” that he wrongly claimed were defamatory even though he “does not dispute any material facts.”     

According to the AP, the story revealed how Manafort, a decade before joining the Trump campaign, had proposed to Deripaska a confidential business strategy to support pro-Russian political parties and to influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit Putin’s government.

To recover for libel, a story must be false.

US First Amendment guarantees for freedom of speech and press are fairly straightforward  “black-letter law” — That is, they are so well settled in precedent  and statute that they are no longer subject to reasonable argument.

And yet, this year and last,  we have seen a raft of lawsuits apparently filed in the unlikely hope that the Trump administration’s dream of curtailing First Amendment rights will be endorsed by the courts. As Melissa Rosenberg of the Washington Post says:  “Billionaires want to enlist you in their secret plans to take down the press.”   For example:

Fake earthquake: Comedian John Oliver  was sued by coal company owner Bob Murray on June 21, 2017. The libel suit alleged that Oliver “meticulously planned attempt to assassinate the character  of … Mr. Murray.” (See Murray’s brief here).  Murray filed a similar lawsuit in April over a New York Times editorial.  (The Times response is here .)  In both cases, Continue reading →