Can It Be Defamatory to Call Someone Rich?
---
Apparently the answer is yes when the plaintiff is super-rich:
Some hasty stitches:
--As a "public figure," Trump is subject to the hurdle of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), that requires that the statement not only be false, and not only be defamatory, but must have been made with "actual malice." It's hard to show that an analysis -- an estimate -- is "false." It may be mistaken, but "false" is much harder to show. To show an analysis was "maliciously" false would be practically impossible. (Compare: an opinion is never actionable as defamation.)
--Trump is claiming compensatory damages of $2.5 billion. Huh? How can he possibly claim that he has suffered direct, tangible, measurable financial loss of $2.5 billion? Did he lose a book deal, or another season of "TheAss-Kisser Apprentice"? The punitive damage claim -- another cool $2.5 billion -- is also a ludicrous headline grabber, but is not as patently absurd as the compensatory claim, which is a flagrant abuse of process.
Trump can whore himself out on NBC as much as he likes. But his portfolio of properties does not include courthouses. If he wants to sue, then fine, go ahead and sue. But lose the histrionic grandstanding damage claims and keep it real (unlike his TV show).
More thoughts at Concurring Opinions, WSJ Law Blog.
Donald J. Trump yesterday filed a lawsuit against New York Times reporter Timothy L. O'Brien and Warner Books, Inc., alleging that O'Brien's book about Trump, TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald, published by Warner in October 2005, defamed the world-famous businessman, real estate developer and public personality.Trump claims his true net worth is approximately $2.7 billion.
In the lawsuit, Trump alleges that O'Brien and Warner knowingly made egregiously false and malicious statements about Trump, his family, his personal life and his business dealings, including statements grossly misrepresenting Trump's net worth. Those defamatory statements included statements that O'Brien claimed were based on three purported anonymous sources with "direct knowledge" of Trump's finances, that Trump "was not remotely close to being a billionaire," and that his "net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million."
Some hasty stitches:
--As a "public figure," Trump is subject to the hurdle of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), that requires that the statement not only be false, and not only be defamatory, but must have been made with "actual malice." It's hard to show that an analysis -- an estimate -- is "false." It may be mistaken, but "false" is much harder to show. To show an analysis was "maliciously" false would be practically impossible. (Compare: an opinion is never actionable as defamation.)
--Trump is claiming compensatory damages of $2.5 billion. Huh? How can he possibly claim that he has suffered direct, tangible, measurable financial loss of $2.5 billion? Did he lose a book deal, or another season of "The
Trump can whore himself out on NBC as much as he likes. But his portfolio of properties does not include courthouses. If he wants to sue, then fine, go ahead and sue. But lose the histrionic grandstanding damage claims and keep it real (unlike his TV show).
More thoughts at Concurring Opinions, WSJ Law Blog.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Trump to Résumé Padder: You're Hired!
- Can It Be Defamatory to Call Someone Rich?
- Humpty-Trumpty: Bankruptcy Equals "Fantastic Success"
- Humpty-Trumpty Now Officially an Omelet
- Humpty-Trumpty, Meet Mayor Blooperberg
- Humpty-Trumpty, Meet Humpty-Dumpling
- Humpty-Trumpty: All the King's Bankers...
- Humpty-Trumpty Had A Great Fall...
Posted by Kip on
24 January 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
