"Defamation" Is The Newest Weapon In The Left's Arsenal To Destroy Its Political Opponents.
The Rule of Law is being systematically dismantled in partisan manner for purely political purposes.
Yesterday, a “jury” in the District of Columbia ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay more than $148 million to two Georgia election workers for the harm caused by defamatory statements he made following the 2020 election. It is the latest payout in a string of other high-profile defamation cases in recent years. Notably, all of the “high-profile” “defamation” cases have concerned persons on the “right” or associated with Trump. It is not a coincidence. Just as with most other aspects of the Rule of Law, this pillar is being dismantled in partisan manner and for purely political purposes for the benefit of one Party.
There can be little doubt that the Rule of Law is not being applied. A tenet of the Rule of Law is equal application of the laws. However, in these “high-profile” “defamation” cases, you will notice that this is not the case. At the outset, consider that one cannot name a single case of a “defamation” case being advanced against someone on the Left or associated with the Democrat Party. Many have been advanced, yet most, if not all, have been given the treatment that past defamation cases received. That is, they were dismissed without reaching a jury. This is especially true for statements made in the public and political arena. However, in the Trump Era, we have noticed an alarming rise in “defamation” case awards against those associated with Trump.
The fact that defamation cases rarely result in damages awards for speech associated with politicians or figures in the public eye should not surprise anyone in light of the fact that the First Amendment enjoys critical importance in the life of America. While Free Speech does not protect all speech, only a limited category of speech is actionable. Yet, in recent years, more speech is being considered “defamatory.” For persons that believe in Free Speech, this is not a good development. However, the fact that this trend is towards permitting some speech to be criminal in the form of “seditious libel” or “defamatory,” if it cuts against a popular narrative or protected group, makes it intolerable. In both instances, political and public speech, the bedrock of any Constitutional democracy, is being eroded.
This erosion of Constitutional democracy is what we are witnessing. This most recent “verdict” is proof of that, especially when considering that the “defaming” decisions in both Alex Jones’ case and Trump’s against E. Jean Carroll had eerily similar unusual disadvantages towards the defendant. At the outset, consider that in each of the most recent “high-profile” defamation cases concerned persons on the “right” or in Trump’s orbit. One cannot name one person on the “Left” or one with the viewpoint favored by the Elite that has been hit with a huge award.
Another alarming trend in these “defamation” cases against this disfavored Trump group is that in each instance, the courts directed that “defamation” had occurred and, thus, the only issue remaining for the jury was the amount of the damages, not whether the individual defendant was guilty of the alleged defamation. The fact that this happened in all three is more than suspect—it is proof positive that, once again, the Left has managed to destroy and rig the system to punish its political opponents. And this weapon is powerful indeed because it has the potential not only to censor powerful and influential voices, but to remove them entirely from the national conversation.
While it might not have started with Alex Jones, his is the first case where I noted this model. Regardless of what you think of what Mr. Jones is accused of saying with respect to the Sandy Hook tragedy, he should have been entitled to his day in court no matter how futile that might have been been. However, he was not given that day. Instead, based on supposed (and extremely questionable) “discovery” violations, the judge struck his defense and declared him guilty of defamation. After this sanction, the lone decision the jury had to made was how much to award the plaintiffs. As we all now know, they awarded enough to bankrupt Alex Jones for life—it is nearly impossible for him to earn enough money to pay the award.
Interestedly, he cannot even seek the bleak haven of bankruptcy because one cannot discharge the damages associated with intentional torts such as defamation in bankruptcy. This makes the political weapon all the more devious. But, of course, it is one of the reasons that defamation was chosen.
Another reason it was chosen is that the tort of defamation goes after supposedly improper and unprotected speech. Thus, the Left now can attack just about anything anyone says at any time. It is nearly perfect because you can eliminate voices in favor of a certain candidate, movement, policy, etc.
On Friday, model was again successfully used against Giuliani. Just as with Alex Jones, Giuliani had been ruled liable and the only decision necessary was for a “jury” to pronounce how much was owed. Similarly, it was Giuliani’s alleged “discovery” violations that resulted in him being declared guilty. Setting aside whether Mr. Giuliani actually acted improperly in his discovery obligations, one does not need to possess a law degree to know that if the Rule of Law is followed, one should not be held liable exception the most unusual of circumstances. The fact that it has occurred more three times in these high profile cases is proof positive we are not following American jurisprudence principles. Indeed, a deep dive, would reveal this too but such is beyond the scope of this article.
If there is any doubt, consider that in each case various other legal defenses have been dispensed with improperly and various other legal principles have been discarded. For example, in Jones’ case a “unique” and never before theory of defamation was advanced and permitted—that one can be defamed because something you said about his or her child was untrue and thus harmed his or her reputation. Under this standard, huge swaths of speech now are improper. Of coarse this is improper and unAmerican, but that is the point. The people advancing these model do not believe in the American way of life.
Similarly, the damages awards have been ridiculous out of proportion with what is permitted under American law. A person is entitled to the damages associated with the loss to his or reputation. But, in the case of Giuliani, one supposed victim was awarded compensatory damages of approximately $1.6 million per year although she never made anything close to that as a poll worker. A tell will be if the award is reduced as it should be by the judge. If past history (Jones’ case, for example) is a clue, it will not be. This too is further proof the system is rigged.
Once again we are watching the Left dismantle another pillar of the American way of life. This one, like the the others, while not impossible to repair is very difficult to reverse. Hopefully Americans will awake to the fact of what is going on and reverse this lawfare before it is too late. It is likely too late for the above discussed victims, but hopefully others and our American discourse can be saved.