Posted on Friday, December 20, 2024
|
by Outside Contributor
|
0 Comments
|
Photo Credit | ABC News
Defamation lawsuits by public figures such as former presidents are exceedingly difficult to maintain.
The fact that Donald Trump just successfully pursued a $16 million action against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos reveals how egregiously the mainstream media has maligned him and the depths to which it has descended.
American law deliberately sets a high bar for imposing liability for defamation of public figures for the simple reason that while the law must protect individuals’ reputations, the First Amendment also safeguards robust public discourse.
Accordingly, in the leading landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public figure plaintiff must prove that the allegedly defamatory defendant made a false statement with either actual knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That “actual malice” legal standard accepts that public figures’ prominence in public discourse and impact upon public life merits more unencumbered discussion of their behavior, character and policies. Robust discussion and criticism of public officials remains essential for a healthy democratic process.
That high threshold provides a safeguard against frivolous lawsuits that would chill free speech and investigative journalism.
In addition to that elevated legal bar, a public figure alleging defamation typically faces an uphill battle to discover and access protected internal corporate communications and evidence to establish actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity of the statement at issue. That presents a daunting task, particularly when the defendant is an established media organization with deep pockets and the ability to mount a vigorous legal defense.
ABC News certainly fits that description as a powerful corporation capable of affording a powerful legal defense.
Heavyweight media organizations like ABC News also retreat to the sympathetic claim that their statements were protected by First Amendment ideals of uninhibited, robust debate on public issues and influential public figures. Such organizations also adeptly frame their statements as opinion or commentary, rather than factual assertions, thereby meriting additional protection under applicable law and precedent.
In this instance, however, the statements at issue in Trump’s lawsuit were egregious, repeated and specific in their legal meaning.
Not only did Stephanopoulos falsely label Trump a convicted “rapist” in an interview with Representative Nancy Mace (R – South Carolina), he did so repeatedly. An experienced anchor of Stephanopoulos’s pedigree and experience either knows that “rape” carries a specific legal meaning, or recklessly ignores the necessary precision when he casually and repeatedly employs it. Moreover, Stephanopoulos was reportedly warned in clear terms to avoid using that word during the interview, but proceeded to ignore those admonitions.
Consequently, Stephanopoulos has no one to blame but himself for being driven not only to a $16 million settlement of Trump’s claim, but also to a humiliating public apology.
For those Americans with a taste for schadenfreude, reports that Stephanopoulos himself was “humiliated” and “apoplectic” over ABC News’s decision to settle the case and issue a public apology will arrive as a pre-holiday gift.
More generally, public trust in the mainstream media has fallen to record lows, and episodes such as this highlight precisely why. The industry is overwhelmingly dominated by leftists, and its product now resembles partisan commentary rather than factual reporting.
Pursuing this defamation action to a successful and newsworthy conclusion constitutes an extraordinary achievement by President-Elect Trump, perhaps the most “public” figure in the world. That reflects not only the legal merit of his case, but also the undeniable malice on the part of Stephanopoulos.
It constitutes more than a personal vindication for Trump, however. It exposes the systemic issues within the broader mainstream media, including its failure to uphold their professed principles of fairness, accuracy and accountability.
Protection of free speech obviously remains central to our national character, and vigorous reporting and marketplace discussion must not be chilled by potential legal threats. Simultaneously, however, we cannot allow the mainstream media to exploit its outsized influence and power to descend into partisan defamation against public figures and candidates while attempting to use the First Amendment as a false shield.
Trump’s successful defamation lawsuit against ABC News and Stephanopoulos in particular highlights the egregious nature of their conduct, and hopefully signals to the media more broadly that their ability to engage in raw partisanship regardless of propriety is not limitless.
Timothy H. Lee is Senior Vice President of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom.
Reprinted with Permission from CFIF.org – By Timothy H. Lee
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
Read the full article here
