![]() If a political candidate, for example, were to call an opponent a “fascist” during a political debate - even with the knowledge that this was not actually true - there would be no grounds for a lawsuit, since reasonable listeners would understand that in this context, rhetorical excesses should not be interpreted as strict statements of fact. While it’s true that she and her lawyer have not shied away from weighing in on politics, it would be a worrisome precedent for the courts to assume that anyone willing to go public with damaging personal information about a political figure is by definition a “political adversary.”īut back to political hyperbole. ![]() It’s worth noting that the judge considered the back-and-forth between Clifford and Trump to be essentially political - even calling her a “political adversary” of the president. Reasonable listeners understand that political figures colorfully express opinions about each other and about issues up for debate, and that rhetorical flourishes in that context should be treated differently than intentional falsehoods presented as facts. The idea behind the “political hyperbole” doctrine is that exaggerated rhetoric in the context of a heated political debate is normal and perhaps even necessary in a popular democracy. He found that President Trump’s tweet, though it referred to something that might eventually be proven true or false, was an example of “political hyperbole” - which is protected speech under the First Amendment. District Court for the Central District of California focused on the first point. In the Clifford suit, Judge James Otero of the U.S. ![]() To prove defamation, a plaintiff must essentially show three things: that the published statement in question was provably “false” and not just an opinion, that the defendant knew it was false and published it with the intent to cause harm, and that the plaintiff suffered demonstrable injury from the published falsehood. Trump responded by tweeting that the alleged encounter didn’t happen and the whole story was a “con job.” Clifford then sued Trump for defamation, among other legal actions she has taken against him and his coterie. The case was about Clifford’s assertion that in 2011, as she was considering going public with information about an affair she had with Trump, she was confronted by a stranger in a parking lot who told her to “leave Trump alone.” In April 2018, Clifford released a sketch of the person who she says confronted her. Defamation is relatively hard to prove in the United States - and that’s a good thing. While Trump’s bullying and name-calling, particularly targeting women, are abhorrent and vulgar, it’s not surprising that Clifford’s suit was unsuccessful. On Monday, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, against Donald Trump alleging that he defamed her on Twitter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |