Photo credit: www.thewrap.com
Trump’s Lawsuit Against Pollster Raises Concerns Over Free Speech
President-elect Donald Trump’s recent legal action against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer is viewed by some analysts as a two-fold issue—a tactic that resembles a “press release disguised as a lawsuit” while also showcasing a potentially concerning pattern in the judicial system, as noted by Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
The suit, filed earlier this week, targets Selzer along with the Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett. Trump accuses them of “brazen election interference” and fraud due to Selzer’s polling misjudgments, which he claims incorrectly forecasted Kamala Harris’s victory in Iowa for the upcoming 2024 elections.
This legal move follows a notable and somewhat surprising agreement by ABC to settle a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $15 million. This settlement arose from comments made by network anchor George Stephanopoulos, who reported that a jury had found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation related to a rape case. It’s critical to clarify that the jury specifically found Trump liable for “sexual abuse,” not rape.
Hayes pointed out that Trump is not the only prominent right-wing figure engaging in such lawsuits. Elon Musk has also taken legal action against Media Matters for monitoring antisemitic content on Twitter, now rebranded as X. However, Hayes emphasized that Trump has a long history of orchestrating such lawsuits, even recalling an unsuccessful attempt against the Chicago Tribune after a critic described one of his skyscraper proposals as an “ugly monstrosity.”
According to Hayes, the right to label a building as an “ugly monstrosity” represents fundamental First Amendment expression. This aspect of free speech was firmly established by the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. The ruling effectively made it more challenging for public figures to sue for defamation unless they could demonstrate that any false claims were made with “actual malice,” meaning the publisher was fully aware of the falsity of the statements. Melber pointed out that this legal standard also safeguards Trump’s capacity to publicly denigrate various individuals without fear of reprisal.
Hayes elaborated that such lawsuits from figures like Trump and Musk may primarily serve as attempts to intimidate the media. He expressed concern regarding how judges are handling these cases, particularly highlighting that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly expressed opposition to the Sullivan decision.
“Conservative judges may be looking at this as a potential avenue to challenge existing legal frameworks,” Hayes warned.
During the discussion, Melber remarked that suing a pollster for an unfavorable result in an inherently variable field like polling appears largely frivolous, unless new evidence of consumer fraud emerges during discovery. While he expressed skepticism about Trump’s likelihood of prevailing in lower courts, Melber acknowledged that winning or losing may not be the primary intention behind such lawsuits.
“There’s an overarching concern regarding what they aim to achieve, either to win or lose but effectively chill speech,” Melber stated. He asserted the importance of monitoring these developments closely, particularly as many right-wing figures seek to present a substantial First Amendment case intended to undermine protections for journalists and the rigorous standards required for reporting on public officials to the Supreme Court.
Viewers can watch the full exchange between Hayes and Melber for deeper insights on this evolving issue below:
Source
www.thewrap.com