How strong is the defamation case against the Trump Campaign and pals? Shall we do the analysis?
Take out your notebooks. It's time for Twitter Law 101: Fun With IRAC.
IRAC is the method of legal analysis known to law students everywhere.
1/
Take out your notebooks. It's time for Twitter Law 101: Fun With IRAC.
IRAC is the method of legal analysis known to law students everywhere.
1/
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1341803095253200897
IRAC stands for:
🔹Issue
🔹Rule
🔹Analysis
🔹Conclusion
Issue the framing of the question: Can a case of defamation be proven against Trump and pals?
For rule, we plug in the elements of defamation.
2/
🔹Issue
🔹Rule
🔹Analysis
🔹Conclusion
Issue the framing of the question: Can a case of defamation be proven against Trump and pals?
For rule, we plug in the elements of defamation.
2/
To prove defamation, the plaintiff must meet 4 elements:
1) a false statement purporting to be fact,
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person,
3) fault amounting to at least negligence,
4) damages, or some harm caused to plaintiffs.
3/
1) a false statement purporting to be fact,
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person,
3) fault amounting to at least negligence,
4) damages, or some harm caused to plaintiffs.
3/
The first element is that there must be a false statement. Truth is a defense to an allegation of defamation.
(This is the aspect that Trump doesn't seem to understand.)
So first the plaintiffs simply have to show that the statements are false. That one is easy.
4/
(This is the aspect that Trump doesn't seem to understand.)
So first the plaintiffs simply have to show that the statements are false. That one is easy.
4/
(2) is also a slam dunk.
(3) requires negligence. This means that the defendant didn't take enough care.
Negligence can mean something like "they didn't bother to check their facts," or "they knew they had no evidence," depending on the situation.
5/
(3) requires negligence. This means that the defendant didn't take enough care.
Negligence can mean something like "they didn't bother to check their facts," or "they knew they had no evidence," depending on the situation.
5/
(4) Showing damages is also easy. Those companies are ruined, so monetary damages are actually substantial. The employee involved apparently had his life threatened, so the employee can also show damages.
Let's back up to (3) requires negligence.
6/
Let's back up to (3) requires negligence.
6/
People get confused when a news organization is involved because they think that Freedom of the Press means that the press can say anything.
Remember: The purpose of the First Amendment is so that we can criticize the government and public officials.
7/
Remember: The purpose of the First Amendment is so that we can criticize the government and public officials.
7/
When a person or news organization is criticizing a public official, the First Amendment comes into play because we have a right to criticize the government.
This, by the way, is something Trump doesn't understand.
8/
This, by the way, is something Trump doesn't understand.
8/
He thinks libel and defamation allows the president to silence criticism, which is backwards.
Anyway, a key case was New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that arose during the Civil Rights Movement.
oyez.org/cases/1963/39
9/
Anyway, a key case was New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that arose during the Civil Rights Movement.
oyez.org/cases/1963/39
9/
The New York Times ran an advertisement in which a group of African American ministers criticized a elected official in Alabama.
The official sued the New York Times in state court alleging libel (defamation) and was awarded $500,000 in damages.
10/
The official sued the New York Times in state court alleging libel (defamation) and was awarded $500,000 in damages.
10/
In fact, these elected officials in Alabama didn't like anyone implying that they were racist.
Their object was to put the New York Times out of business.
The issue in the Supreme Court was whether the Alabama law violated the NY Times First Amendment rights.
11/
Their object was to put the New York Times out of business.
The issue in the Supreme Court was whether the Alabama law violated the NY Times First Amendment rights.
11/
The Supreme Court added a heightened standard when the plaintiff was an elected official.
Ordinarily, you just have to show that the statement was false and the defendant was reckless.
If the subject of the defamation is a public official, a higher showing is necessary.
12/
Ordinarily, you just have to show that the statement was false and the defendant was reckless.
If the subject of the defamation is a public official, a higher showing is necessary.
12/
If you are criticizing a public official, it's not enough to prove recklessness (should have been more careful).
Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.
Justice Brennan said "actual malice."
13/
Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.
Justice Brennan said "actual malice."
13/
In this case, the plaintiff is the private citizen and the defendants are the public figures (or they represent a public figure.)
So the standard is obviously simple recklessness.
In the other cases, the defendants are FOX News and the plaintiffs are the companies.
14/
So the standard is obviously simple recklessness.
In the other cases, the defendants are FOX News and the plaintiffs are the companies.
14/
Dominion and Smartmatic do not function in any way like public figures. They had not achieved fame. They didn't take a public stand on a controversial issue.
Dominion is a company that sells hardware, and they were ruined by the lies told by public officials. . .
15/
Dominion is a company that sells hardware, and they were ruined by the lies told by public officials. . .
15/
. . . as amplified by media outlets that don't claim to be "news," and they serve as mouthpieces for public officials.
So what do you con up with?
How strong is the case against Trump and Pals (and other defendants in related defamation suits.)
I'll be grading your papers.
16/
So what do you con up with?
How strong is the case against Trump and Pals (and other defendants in related defamation suits.)
I'll be grading your papers.
16/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
