"The Death of Free Speech?"

 

"The Death of Free Speech?"

So, let’s try for a little perspective: Donald Trump is suing CNN for almost precisely the amount of money he owes, but doesn’t have, to pay his numerous creditors. Of course, he doesn’t have the money to pay his lawyers either, but his easily duped MAGA drones are contributing, about $7 million to date, and most contributions are being used to pay the law firm du-jour which sees in Trump a money machine which can be billed regardless of outcome.

 Trump’s suit revolves around his claims that CNN has slandered him over the years by commenting on his proven false statements and, more to the point, by analyzing his actions and allegations in the context of his proven racism, sexism, and disregard for the law as it applies to him and his finances. Most of these have been corroborated by other non-CNN sources such as Trump family members, former staffers, and other media sources.

The most likely outcome for these and similar Trump suits will be dismissal. The New York State tax fraud cases against Trump and his older spawn must, at least, be proven with hard data. Slander and libel on the other hand are far more difficult to prove, especially when the alleged “victim” (hard to even use that term where Trump is involved) is a public figure. Engaging in a public forum, by its very, nature raises the slander/libel bar far higher.

It has historically been more difficult to prove slander/libel when the accuser is a celebrity because public figures have more factors to prove. The courts tend to distinguish between two types of plaintiffs in defamation actions: “private individuals” and “public figures.” The difference in the way they are treated depends on the defendant's knowledge in publishing the defamatory content. Private individuals need only establish that the publisher acted with "negligence." However, where public figures are concerned, the courts have generally held that there is a lessened interest in protecting the defamed subject's reputation. Therefore, public-figure plaintiffs must allege a higher level of knowledge.

In the generally cited case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) The Supreme Court established that a public figure plaintiff must establish what is known as “actual malice.” To show actual malice, the person who published the statement either had to have known that the statement was false or published it with reckless disregard despite awareness of the probable falsity (think Tucker Carlson). The existence of actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

In plain speak, an example might be that a public figure individual makes a public statement which is proven to be false, and a media outlet analyzes said statement for what it may imply about the individual. In a blatant example, candidate Trump repeatedly said he’d be “too busy to play golf” while in office, yet when elected he actually played more, and much more expensively, than any previous President. Analysis of that statement as it relates to Trump’s proclivity for lying as shown by his actions, might make Trump angry, but it certainly isn’t libel or slander.

Compared to the almost daily spate of outright lies and distortions of several Fox News talking heads, CNN is pure as the driven snow. Trump’s public behavior has done more to demonstrate Trump’s lack of character than CNN could ever do.

So why all this explanation? Simply because, in the light of recent events re: the even more despicable (if that’s even possible) Alex Jones, the same Trump MAGA sycophants are screaming about the “death of free speech.” He was, justifiably, again found guilty for his continued slanderous attacks on private individuals in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings. In a too-rare victory for the good guys, he was also ordered to pay punitive damages of almost $1 billion!

 Such “experts” as Marjorie Taylor Greene grossly over-simplified it thus: "No matter what you think of Alex Jones, all he did was speak words. He was not the one who pulled the trigger." At this juncture I might point out that her words would, in her warped state of reality, also largely excuse Hitler for the Holocaust, since, like Jones, he didn’t actually personally kill anyone, but his words led to it. The above reductio ad absurdum (using exaggeration to the ridiculous level to demonstrate a point) was made to illustrate the Far Right “But whaddabout?” mentality. It’s true that Alex Jones did not “kill anybody” but whaddabout (insert latest conspiracy theory here).

Jones, by implication, did accuse the government of complicity when, in December of 2012, Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty students and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. Not only that, but he intruded into the private lives of grieving parents by alleging that the children weren’t dead, and that “crisis actors” were faking it all. By direct implication he accused fifteen sets of parents of complicity. Jones has admitted calling bereaved Sandy Hook parents "crisis actors" on his show and saying the shooting was "phony as a three-dollar bill". His shows continued to portray the Sandy Hook shooting as staged as part of gun control efforts. He also said: "You've got parents laughing - "hahaha" - and then they walk over to the camera and go "boo hoo hoo," and not just one but a bunch of parents doing this and then photos of kids that are still alive they said died? The reverse has long since been proven.        

Over the following years, and largely in response to Jones’ continuing allegations, Strangers showed up at some of the bereaved parents’ homes to record them. People hurled abusive comments on social media. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of the slain Sandy Hook principal, testified that people mailed rape threats to her house. Mark Barden recounted how conspiracy theorists had urinated on the grave of his seven-year-old son, Daniel, and threatened to dig up the coffin.

   Without Jones, it is unlikely any of this would have happened. Understand, these parents and those in Uvalde, Texas, were private individuals, and Alex Jones, by his hate speech, turned them into public figures and then further injured them with false allegations that, in the case of Sandy Hook, incited even worse direct actions of others. This is a textbook example of Slander and, probably, hate speech!

On the off chance that the name Alex Jones doesn’t resonate with you he has also over the years claimed that:

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an “inside job” perpetrated by the U.S. government.

“Of course, there’s weather weapon stuff going on “We had floods in Texas like fifteen years ago, killed thirty-something people in one night. Turned out it was the Air Force.”

The government is using chemicals in order to turn people gay, using a mysterious “gay bomb” devised by the Pentagon.

The Oklahoma City bombing was a “false flag” government operation perpetrated by government forces to frame and stigmatize the militia movement

“The reason there’s so many gay people now is because it’s a chemical warfare operation. They’re (the “gummint?)  going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children.”

There are many more, but you get the picture.

Now to finish: Many of those who are supporting, and even funding, Trump’s frivolous suit against CNN are the same ones watching Fox News and screaming “The death of free speech” in the wake of the Jones verdict.”  Apparently, they believe they can have it both ways. What a sorry and pathetic batch of deplorables.