Summary
Trump adviser Stephen Miller erupted on Fox News after MSNBC analyst Andrew Weissmann criticized Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants as possibly unconstitutional.
Miller called Weissmann “an absolute moron,” “a fool,” and “a degenerate,” claiming he “shills for people who rape and murder Americans.”
When host Martha MacCallum noted both could express opinions, Miller shouted that he’d “defend American lives” while Weissmann “can defend illegal alien rapists, terrorists and predators.”
This continues Miller’s pattern of televised outbursts, including previous incidents on CNN and reactions to SNL jokes about Trump.
“Defamation is a statement that injures a third party’s reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages .”
I will also be waiting for you to turn in your law license.
I assume you’re quoting from this page?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
If so, you should have kept reading:
“To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; …”
So, opinions don’t count. Nothing he said was a verifiable statement of fact, it was all purely opinion, so it’s not defamation.
Thanks for your law degree!
I think you are getting confused as telling the truth is generally not considered defamation. Telling a lie that causes a tort (or an injury, now that you have lost your license) is the definition of defamation.
Please just stop with your opinion nonsense.
Exactly my point. Telling a lie (something that can be factually true or false, and isn’t merely an opinion) is an element of defamation (clearly not the entire definition of defamation, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew that much at least).
Don’t even play, your original statement was nonsensical to defining defamation.
While defamation is hard to prove in some circumstances, in this case it is pretty cut and dry.
“prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 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 ; and 4) damages , or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.”
We have three of the conditions already. The plaintiff would need to prove harm for the last. With an actual tort I think this case could be successful, but there are a lot of variables.
What do you think?
What’s the false statement purporting to be fact, and not simply an opinion?
I am not sure this is going to be looked at this way by a jury or judge in the case of a summary judgement. I think the operational word here is purporting.
"“Purport” focuses on the substance or essence of a legal document, rather than its literal wording. "
Was he saying something meant to be considered factual in an attempt to defame. I think most reasonable people would agree with this statement.
Also, you must consider this will be a civil trial not a criminal one. The don’t need to prove mens rea here so instead of beyond a shadow it is what side is more believable.
On a personal level, I find it disturbing that for one, an aid to the POTUS talks to the media to begin with. Two, that this aid likes to freak the fuck out and make an ass of himself on national broadcast media. Three, that he is clearly a Neo-Nazi.
Any one of these things would have prevented someone from being part of our government in the past…yet here we are discussing whether or not he is defaming. Just seems odd.