The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lawsuit Over Alec Baldwin's Publicly Labeling Woman "Insurrectionist" for Her Jan. 6 Activities Dismissed by Court
Plaintiffs sued for defamation, and also for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the comments aroused by Baldwin's posts.
From McCollum v. Baldwin, decided today by Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.):
Jiennah McCollum is the widow of Marine Lance Corporal Rylee J. McCollum, who was killed in an attack by a suicide bomber on August 26, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. One month after Rylee died in Kabul, Jiennah gave birth to their daughter. Rylee is also survived by his father, Jim, and two sisters, Roice and Cheyenne. Roice appeared on the Fox News program "The Story with Martha MacCallum" in early 2022 to discuss Rylee's death….
Baldwin has 2.4 million followers on Instagram, where he has been socially and politically active for years. After Rylee's death, a GoFundMe account started fundraising for Jiennah and her soon-to-be-born daughter. Baldwin donated $5,000 to Jiennah in support of the soldier's family.
On January 6, 2021, Roice went to Washington, D.C. to participate in the demonstration to protest the election of President Joe Biden, which later escalated into a riot in the Capitol Building. However, she did not take part in the riot: she neither entered the Capitol Building nor engaged in any confrontation with police officers or government officials. Roice was later interviewed by the FBI about the demonstration and was cleared of any wrongdoing. Jiennah and Cheyenne were not present in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
On January 3, 2022, Baldwin saw a photo of a crowd of demonstrators at the Washington Monument posted by Roice on her Instagram page in anticipation of the one-year anniversary of her attendance at the Washington, D.C. demonstration.
Baldwin then commented on Roice's post "Are you the same woman that I sent the $ to for your sister's husband who was killed during the Afghanistan exit?" Upon confirmation from Roice that she was the sister of Rylee and the sister-in-law of Jiennah, Baldwin engaged in an exchange of private messages with Roice on Instagram. The final private messages between Baldwin and Roice state as follows:
Baldwin: When I sent the $ for your late brother, out of real respect for his service to this country, I didn't know you were a January 6th rioter.
Roice: Protesting is perfectly legal in the country and I've already had my sit down with the FBI. Thanks, have a nice day!
Baldwin: I don't think so. Your activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, an assault on the certification of the presidential election. I reposted your photo, Good luck.
After engaging in the private conversation with Roice, Baldwin published a public post on Instagram, which was available to his followers, regarding the protest and riot at the Capitol. Doc. Baldwin included a photo of Roice and wrote the following in the caption of the post:
I will take this down tomorrow. Lots of Trumpsters chiming in here with the current cry that the attack on the Capitol was a protest, (a more peaceful form of which got a lot of other protestors imprisoned) and an exercise in democracy.
That's bullshit.
The party that has reflexively rallied on behalf of Law enforcement- Support the Troops-Jesus watched the Capitol police get beaten, one killed, and called it their right.
I've said it before. The Republican that can lead the GOP away from this maniac [Trump] will go down in history as a hero.
There's an interesting story here…
So, I read in The Times, I believe, the story about the soldiers that died at the Kabul airport.
I did some research.
I found, on [Instagram], that this woman [Roice McCollum] is the brother [sic] of one of the men who was killed. I offered to send her sister-in-law [Jiennah McCollum] some $ as a tribute to her late brother, his widow and their child.
Which I did. As a tribute to a fallen soldier. Then I find this.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
In response to Baldwin's post, several of his followers sent Roice a number of hateful messages. One of these private messages to Roice reads: "Get raped and die, worthless cunt [] Your brother got what he deserved." Roice then took a screenshot of this private message and posted it in on her Instagram page with the caption: "Thanks for the follow Alec.[]"
Baldwin responded to the hateful message directed at Roice under her post: "I find that abhorrent[.] My feelings were expressed by my gesture on behalf of your brother." Baldwin's following comment under this post reads:
alecbaldwininsta: @roice wyogirl that is not true. There are hateful things posted toward you that are wrong. Irony was my point. The irony of sincerely wanting to honor your brother and the fact that you are an insurrectionist. Irony: "the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really think especially in order to be funny[.]" (Merriam Webster)
In addition, Baldwin engaged in some discussions with others regarding the McCollums in the comments under Roice's post:
exdemocrat313: So you're saying you would deny a dead man's family help due to your political view?????? People like you is why I lost all faith in Democrats. []
alecbaldwininsta: @exdemocrat313 but I didn't say that. I gratefully supported the gofundme campaign while simultaneously not knowing the woman I approached is an insurrectionist. I think that's … remarkable.
fateisabluebird : @exdemocrat313 shut up. [Baldwin] has no obligation to send his money to anyone in the first place—to find out he sent money to someone who holds responsibility for the death of others would be gutting. She doesn't deserve his kindness.
Baldwin's followers eventually directed their efforts against all Plaintiffs. Roice, Cheyenne and Jiennah began receiving more insulting and disturbing comments, dishonoring Rylee and accusing them of being, among other things, white supremacists and Nazis. Below are examples of the comments sent to Plaintiffs:
falteringlyhuman: @chi wyomom22 fact: your sister has 2 recent posts flashing the white supremacy hand sign, that's all I need to declare her garbage [] we fought a war against people that think like this, I for one am ready for Round 2 of nazi-punching []
momdiariesandsunflowers: @alecbaldwininsta I can't believe this. She is proud of destroying our country ? Did I miss something here? My goodness []
trish_whring: @chi wyomom22 this isn't about him for me. It's about her actions, involvement and motives being involved in the insurrection. [ . . . ]
woke.business: @roice_wyogirl you are white supremacy.
bellafoxjr: @roice_wyogirl YOU SAY THIS ABOUT @alecbaldwininsta AND YET YOU WERE SO QUICK TO TAKE MONEY FROM HIM? IS THAT HOW IT WENT DOWN? IF IT IS, YOU'RE DISGUSTING, AND YOU ARE ARE [sic] ERASING YOUR BROTHER'S LEGACY.
bellafoxjr: @chi wyomom22 Is your whole family the same? Were they all insurrectionists? Do they all preach hate against @alecbaldwininsta?
sem919mes: @roice wyogirl you're going to jail for your participation in an insurrection on the US Government. []
ibellai : @chi wyomom22 let's say someone died at war and left their wife and child alone. People would donate so they can get by with a little more help but then you find out they partake in ISIS. You wouldn't feel right helping and giving money to ISIS, right?
alexhspina: @jane.vick.jaidi Someone losing a sibling is not an excuse to be an a**hole traitor nor does it give her special status over other Americans. Trying to overthrow the government has consequences.
Plaintiffs assert that Baldwin's posts were made with malicious intent, as evidenced by the fact that he wished Roice "good luck" when he told her that he re-posted her photo. Baldwin, they contend, failed to correct his false statement that Roice was an insurrectionist, despite the fact that he was specifically told that Roice did not participate in the riot. Plaintiffs further allege that Baldwin, as a politically active celebrity with 2.4 million followers, acted negligently and recklessly as he knew or should have known that his comments on Instagram would result in the hateful speech being directed towards Jiennah, Roice, and Cheyenne.
Each of the Plaintiffs raises the following claims against Baldwin: (1) negligence and gross negligence; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, Roice alleges defamation, defamation per se, and defamation by implication. Plaintiffs seek $25 million in compensatory and punitive damages….
The court rejected Roice's defamation claim:
Roice alleges that Baldwin's posts constitute a representation that she was a "January 6 rioter" and "insurrectionist," and that Baldwin "define[d]" the term "insurrectionist for his 2.4 million followers." In response, Baldwin emphasizes that Baldwin's reference to Roice as a "January 6 rioter," and his contention that her "activities resulted in" several unlawful consequences, took place completely within their private communications.
The Court agrees that the messages exchanged between Baldwin and Roice via direct messaging are not actionable to support defamation claims because Baldwin did not publish those messages to any third party…..
Baldwin made two comments that were available to the public under Roice's Instagram posts where he referred Roice as an "insurrectionist." … Roice is a limited public figure with respect to this dispute. Roice posted the January 6 demonstration photo publicly on Instagram, with a caption that expressed her political views as a participant, in anticipation of the demonstration's one-year anniversary, and she voluntarily engaged in conversations with Baldwin—a well-known celebrity. Furthermore, as set forth above, Roice voluntarily injected herself into the public realm by appearing on several news sites in the aftermath of her brother's death and before this action was filed. Thus, because Roice is a limited public figure with respect to the controversy, her defamation claims must be dismissed unless she adequately pleads that Baldwin made the comments with actual malice.
Here, the Court agrees with Baldwin that Roice did not sufficiently plead actual malice and that his comments are protected under the First Amendment. While Plaintiffs claim that "[Baldwin] knew, or should have known, that [publishing potentially false comments] would result in an avalanche of violently negative attacks on Plaintiffs," this allegedly negligent conduct does not meet the threshold of actual malice. Instead, the question here is whether Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently assert that Baldwin personally believed his statements were false. However, … Plaintiffs' allegations do not support their proposition that Baldwin knew or believed his comments referring to Roice as an "insurrectionist" were false when he posted them. To the contrary, their allegation—"[Baldwin] posted what he believed was [Roice's] image on her Instagram feed to his 2.4 million followers and continued labelling [Roice] an 'insurrectionist'"—suggests that Baldwin posted what he believed was true. Thus, Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead that Baldwin intentionally posted false and defamatory statement with actual malice….
According to Roice, Baldwin's "re-publication [Roice's photo] and subsequent incitement to his 2.4 million followers" amounts to defamation…. [T]he Court concludes that Roice fails to allege that the post contains any false information: she admits that she was present at the demonstration in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, when and where she took the photo that she later publicly posted, and that Baldwin reposted. In fact, the complaint makes clear that the substance of Baldwin's post was true: Roice is Rylee's sister, her sister-in-law did receive a $5,000 donation from Baldwin, and Roice did participate in the demonstration in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, where she took the photo of herself that was reposted by Baldwin. Thus, Baldwin's post is not defamatory….
The court also rejected plaintiffs' negligence claim, because, "[e]ven though Baldwin's followers, as third parties, may have reacted to Baldwin's opinion in an offensive manner, there is no obligation to protect a bystander … from an emotional injury." And the court rejected Roice's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because, on these facts, it was duplicative of the defamation claim: "[W]hen additional tort claims are aimed at controlling the same speech that is the basis of a libel claim, courts should not entertain the additional claims under less stringent standards."
The court also rejected Jiennah and Cheyenne's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims:
Under New York law, conduct may be "extreme and outrageous" [which is required for such a claim] where "there is a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation." Thus, the proper inquiry is not merely whether an individual act might be outrageous, but whether the action in totality amounted to a deliberate and malicious campaign.
Under the above standard, Jiennah and Cheyenne fail to plead that Baldwin's conduct was "extreme and outrageous" or that he acted with an intent to cause severe emotional distress. Jiennah and Cheyenne stated in the complaint that "[Baldwin's post] invited 2.4 million people to attack, threaten, and shame the McCollum family." Even taken as true, this single allegation does not meet the "extremely high bar" of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cf. Moraes v. White (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (finding that it is "extreme and outrageous" that defendant made multi-pronged campaign to harass plaintiff, including sending agents to her apartment to threaten her, delivering cease-and-desist letters, and post defamatory statements on social media). While Jiennah and Cheyenne also allege that they received death threats and hateful comments referring to them as Nazis and racists, these statements were made by third parties. Thus, they cannot be used as evidence of plaintiffs' claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Baldwin. In addition, Jiennah and Cheyenne do not plead that Baldwin acted with an intent to "cause severe emotional distress." …
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Legal issues aside, this shows more to the pedantic nature of too many online agents who feel the need to "vent" onto others. Use of vulgarities, etc. highlight the lack of higher brain function in linguistic skills. Suggestions for improvement could include "fornicator" instead of "fucker" and use of spoonerisms such as "Fother Mucker" instead of "Mother Fucker."
TBH I prefer either "Oedipist" or "the Jacksonian Noun".
You’d think killing someone would humble a person and get them to focus on more important things than twitter slapfights yet here Baldwin is full steam ahead just a little more than two months after.
He might go to trial after all.
What
It's been all over the news recently. E.g.: Charges against Alec Baldwin could be refiled as forensic report shows trigger on gun used in ‘Rust’ shooting had to be pulled.
A real 'well, duh" moment.
I don’t understand how the existence or absence of a trigger pull has anything to do with negligence. When you point a firearm at someone, that is risky. Doing so before taking the few seconds needed to ensure it is not loaded is negligent.
He got away with it, that emboldens them more.
Baldwin is a jerk and a fool. He is lucky to have better lawyers than the plaintiff. Money has advantages even for jerks like Baldwin.
Perhaps, but not as big a jerk or fool as someone who would travel from Wyoming to D.C. to rant about a stolen election and exhibit fealty to Donald Trump -- and then be dumb enough to go back to Wyoming.
Thanks "Reverend", but I'll pass on who Jerry Sandusky considers "Dumb"
wow, that guy Mitch & Murray sent is a real A-hole!
and who's he think he is shooting someone in New May-he-co??
and why hasn't he gone to trial yet?? sounds pretty open and shut
(maybe "Smoking Gun"??) to me.
Frank "Put: That: Coffee: Down:"
"to find out he sent money to someone who holds responsibility for the death of others would be gutting"
Apparently not.
My issue with Baldwin is him playing the peophile scoutmaster on SNL -- which is NOT funny and would NOT be tolerated were he hitting on an actress playing a 15 year old GIRL.
https://archive.org/details/canteen-larry-goes-to-camp-with-scoutmaster-alec-baldwin
This wasn't funny...
This is most excellent timing for those hopeful 14th Amendment junkies who want "insurrection" to be a subjective term. It's hard to imagine they'll be able to avoid the temptation to at least include this in a kitchen-sink string cite, if not try to fluff it up into something stronger. Alley-OOP!
This is the same Alec Baldwin who pointed a loaded gun at an innocent person and killed them with it? Most would say that makes him a murderer.
Armchair Lawyer : “Most would say that makes him a murderer”
“Most” people (of course) - except anyone who might sit on a jury and hear actual evidence.
“Most” people would exclude those folk.
Well, it's a good thing that a jury won't get to hear it, isn't it The FBI report that the gun almost certainly could not have gone off unless the trigger was pulled would be convincing for a fair number of people IMO.
Interesting that the charges are dropped after the prosecution team is switched out, after the original prosecutor "resigned".
I wonder what pressure Baldwin brought on the DA's office and their superiors.
Anybody who knew anything about guns already was aware that the odds of that gun having gone off without his pulling the trigger were close to zero. Guns just going off on their own is kind of like cars suddenly accelerating despite pushing on the “brake” pedal for all you’re worth: Theoretically it’s possible under extreme circumstances, but generally it’s a product of people being in denial about having actually had their foot on the accelerator/pulled the trigger.
His best defense was always that,
1) He was supposed to be pointing the gun in that direction at that moment according to the script,
and
2) He was reasonably relying on the prop master’s responsibility for giving him a safe gun.
But, #1 seems not to have been true, which gets us to at least negligent manslaughter.
The cameras weren't running. Therefore he should not have been pointing a gun capable of firing bullets. If they were just blocking out movements, he should have been using a pure prop gun. In fact, he should be using a pure prop gun for all scenes which don't require him to fire the gun; it just needs to be convincing prop when the cameras are running. Therefore #1 is moot.
The weapons master had been given other duties and was off doing them. He's not supposed to be using guns capable of firing ammunition without her presence. Which moots #2.
And because he was a director as well as an actor he can't hide behind orders; he's in large part responsible for said orders.
You guns don't just go off by themselves??
Strange, I hear people claim that all the time.
Certainly all people who hate Alec Baldwin would say that. And I doubt I know enough about the event to speak with certainty, but I am aware that there were only involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin which were subsequently dropped.
Coming out swinging for a dude that not only gunned an innocent woman done but gave so little of a shit about it he broadcast it all over the world with the one of the most asscovering nonresponsibility taking publicity tours in an age of asscovering nonresponsibility tours. And was back on Twitter grandstanding about Blumpf before the presses cooled.
If only you guys were as understanding about everybody else. You'd be forced to award Flumpf the Nobel Peace Prize if you applied the same standards equally.
Insisiting on accuracy is a robust defense in Amos-world, where lies don't count if you are mad enough.
'If only you guys were as understanding about everybody else.'
Amos 'whatabout' Arch waxes again.
I don't "hate" Baldwin. I just think he should be held to the same standard he appears to hold everyone else.
I'm very curious as to why the charges were dropped against him, but not Gutierrez-Reed, and only when the prosecution team was switched out.
I don't like Baldwin much either - he has always seemed like an insufferable douchebag to me - but what he did isn't murder. Maybe one of the lesser manslaugters? Maybe?
Maybe not even that.
If the recent reports are correct that he actually pulled the trigger, I don't think an aggressive prosecutor would have any trouble at all indicting on second-degree murder, which doesn't require intent or premeditation but just acting with callous/reckless indifference to human life.
Whether he'd actually be convicted is probably a closer call, but if the best spin he can put on his choice to violate two of the most fundamental gun safety rules is that it was just a joke and he had no idea someone else hadn't assured the gun was unloaded, IMO he starts out way behind the 8 ball.
If he was told by the people on set who are in charge of that particular type of prop that the gun was all blanks (with him having experienced harmless prop guns hundreds of times) and I was a juror, I don't think I could convict him for murder, despite the fact that I'd love to see his arrogant ass brought down a few notches.
Maybe a low misdemeanor. Just maybe though.
I'm one of those people that does not like to see obvious accidents elevated into serious crimes. Accidents that harm people are in the "there but for the grace of God go I" category for all of us.
I don't know that I would vote to convict him of either -- though I agree his attitude about the whole thing has been very off-putting and wouldn't do him any favors at all if this ever gets to a jury.
As I said below, though, I do think he made a series of extremely poor and reckless choices, and that remains true even if he had lulled himself into a false sense of security by making those same poor and reckless choices but had been saved by the fact that all the prior guns actually were unloaded or loaded with blanks.
And stepping back, I do think it's worth keeping track of what the potential charges could be -- and more often are -- when the shooter is of less fortunate/seedier origins rather than a big-shot celebrity. That may not be an issue of the prosecutors being starstruck as much as just another example of how they tend to pile on in the cases they're more comfortable they can win (whether on the merits or because the defendant isn't able to afford counsel that can give them much hassle).
Life of Brian : "If the recent reports are correct that he actually pulled the trigger"
1. Of course he pulled the trigger. Whether thru psychological aversion or weaselly spin, his excuse the gun just went off was never credible.
2. Movies typically have a strict protocol to take all safety measures from the hands of actors and put them into the hands of professional armorers. They don’t want actors responsible for safety; they don’t trust they to be responsible for safety. There was a multiple step process by which the prop gun went from the armorer to Baldwin, and it was supposedly certified as safe at every step. Per set rules, when he was handed the weapon he wasn’t supposed to follow “two of the fundamental gun safety rules”. Per set rules, he was just supposed to follow the script and director.
If all the people here showing off their gun bona fides were on a movie set, I suspect they’d find the director and armorer would object to their following “fundamental gun safety rules” when handling a cleared gun. I suspect they’d be told to follow the set protocol as well. The system failed tragically on the Rust movie set, but its overall record is nearly perfect. No rational jury would convict Baldwin of anything after being shown in detail he bore zero culpability in the mistakes made on the movie set.
Note : Some people claim he bears responsibility as a producer. Rust (like other movies) had a good eight or nine producers of some sort or other. None of the other producers have been charged.
I respectfully disagree that "I was told it was empty" without more gives him license to point the gun directly at anyone -- much less a camera operator, who should not EVER need to be directly in the line of fire -- and pull the trigger. People screw up, as apparently they did here, and if you don't at least sanity check that they didn't do so with gun in your hand before shooting it at someone, that's not a buck you can pass.
If you have anything concrete that the "set protocol" gives an actor free license to point and shoot at other people solely upon someone else's say-so, I'm happy to read it. What I've found so far comports with common sense -- that of course there are multiple layers of safety in place, but person holding the gun and pulling the trigger still at a bare minimum should not be pointing it directly at another human being while doing so (much less during a rehearsal!), precisely for the reason we're discussing. There's a decent writeup here by someone deeply involved with both firearms and safety protocols on sets. A few particularly salient bits:
Well, you're calling him something that isn't correct just like he did to someone else, so I guess mission accomplished.
I wouldn't call someone a murderer for doing the same thing even if it was someone I thought was the most awful person in the world otherwise. He might have greater liability for supervisory failures as one of the producers, but that still wouldn't be murder. As armorer, Gutierrez-Reed clearly had responsibility for the gun; it doesn't seem unreasonable for an actor to assume that the gun he's handed is safe for the scene he's going to perform.
It is entirely possible that charges were less pursued against someone wealthy (film making in New Mexico presumably brings in money that someone important might prefer not to risk losing). I agree that's not a good thing when it does happen. Note that those who acted far more terribly leading to the deaths of Vic Morrow and two children were acquitted of manslaughter (in California, where the movie industry undoubtedly has a lot of clout). The death of Brandon Lee was another tragedy from a similar cause; movie makers want the most realism, no matter how dangerous.
Just depends how you define Murder.
If we go by the common definition (Merriam-Webster), Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
I would say that Alec Baldwin easily meets that standard. He killed someone, and it was not lawful, and it was not justifiable.
Just depends how you define Murder.
You are on a legal blog, my man. Love the Clintonesque 'it depends on what the definition of murder is' though!
Dropped without prejudice. If the DA gears up enough to fight his lawyers, they could be brought back.
Civil Suit's still percolating, I know he's rich, but sometimes Hollyweird stars aren't as rich as you think.
The court also rejected plaintiffs' negligence claim, because, "[e]ven though Baldwin's followers, as third parties, may have reacted to Baldwin's opinion in an offensive manner, there is no obligation to protect a bystander … from an emotional injury."
This is an interesting standard. What's the precedent?
If the shoe were on the other foot, would this come out the same? Given Baldwin's past, I would say yes (he did shoot and kill someone, and many have posted about it).
Um, what? That's basic tort law. It's all about the duties you owe, and you don't owe duties to other people to protect them from emotional injuries that third parties might cause.
Which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense because otherwise the scope of liability would be unlimited.
Unless you prompted them to cause those injuries, of course.
Like accusing somebody you would reasonably know was not part of the riot of being part of it.
Are you just blathering, or do you actually have a legal argument about torts and negligence? Serious question.
Let’s repeat- Do you, Brett, have a duty to a third person because your words caused other people to do things that caused emotional damage to a third person? Feel free to explain, using case law and actual tort theory, as to why this is the case, as opposed to … whatever it is you’re doing. Feel free to add in actual examples of IIED and NIED, as well as your understanding of torts and duties.
(And for those who continue to remain unclear on the concept-
Torts are about duties. Generally, there is no duty to protect people from injuries inflicted by third parties. That’s kind of, DUH, thing. There can be exceptions to this- but again, this will require the existence of a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff has an obligation to protect the defendant. Unless the plaintiff has a duty of care to prevent those injuries, there can’t be an action. Even if the emotional harm is foreseeable, it still doesn’t fly. This is speaking generally – tort law varies from state to state, but I am unaware of any major exceptions to this general framework.
In the real world, this makes total sense. Imagine Brett blathers on about some person or other. Someone reads his comment, makes the mistake of believing it’s true, and then harasses that person. As reprehensible as that behavior is, Brett can’t be liable under the tort theory of negligence. Defamation? Maybe. But not negligence for the acts of third parties.)
My theory is that, while you don't owe people any duty to protect people from injuries inflicted by third parties, if the injuries are due to your own defamation of the victim, maybe you've got a case after all.
Because the third party injuries become an actual injury component of the defamation.
Your comment, again, shows that when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Legal claims have required elements. Negligence, for example, and even NIED, is a different claim than defamation.
Damages, for that matter, are different than the elements of a claim (although damages are a required element).
Pro tip- if you don’t know what you’re talking about, but feel the need to comment just because of REASONS, maybe don’t. ????
And what, exactly, do you imagine an "actual injury" in a defamation case to be, if not third parties acting on the basis of the defamation?
And, remember, in New Mexico, humiliation and mental anguish are considered to be 'actual injury".
So, yeah, if you defame somebody in New Mexico, and it prompts somebody else to make death threats towards that person?
Actual injury.
No offense, but do I need to type this slowly?
I replied to a person who was quoting a snippet of the opinion that dealt with the negligence claim. You do understand that there were multiple claims, right? And so, as a matter of law, there was no negligence claim (or NIED). That’s … black letter law.
There was no defamation claim, either. So the issue of damages never came up.
I know that you’re stuck on, um, whatever it might be so you don’t look like you don’t know what you’re talking about … but in terms of discussion of legal issues, you didn’t.
Now, if your only point was … if a person actually makes a defamation claim, then damages can include the impact of how third parties act … well, that’s also kind of a DUH, isn’t it? Because defamation claims involve the harm to reputation, and how people react to you afterwards can be measured in damages. Like a business that is defamed, such that third parties no longer contract with it (Dominion, for example).
But this is all Law 101. Again, hole, digging. That these things aren't immediately obvious to you might indicate something if you think about it.
"There was no defamation claim, either. "
From above, "Plaintiffs sued for defamation"
There was no defamation claim BECAUSE IT WAS DISMISSED.
Seriously dude, can you even? Seriously, you are so hell-bent on proving yourself right that you don’t realize how stupid you seem.
"Procedural posture, what is that?"
You know good and well Brett is not a lawyer. Stop being such a tiresome prick.
"There was no defamation claim BECAUSE IT WAS DISMISSED."
I'm quoting that in a high, mocking voice, in case you had any doubts. High and mighty lawyer doesn't even understand tenses, or that a claim has to have existed in order to get dismissed, so, yeah, THERE DAMNED WELL WAS A DEFAMATION CLAIM. (I match your capitals and raise with bold!)
There was a defamation claim, and the fact that it got dismissed in no way whatsoever bars me from discussing whether it actually looks like a reasonable claim.
So go pound sand, asshole.
You know what? I'm sleep deprived, and that makes me testy. Sorry about the 'asshole' remark, anyway.
I’m coming back to point this out, because you really don’t seem to understand context.
Here- “I replied to a person who was quoting a snippet of the opinion that dealt with the negligence claim. You do understand that there were multiple claims, right? And so, as a matter of law, there was no negligence claim (or NIED). That’s … black letter law.
There was no defamation claim, either. So the issue of damages never came up.”
See the context? From the two sentences right before that? Stating that there were multiple claims, and that as a matter of law, there was no negligence claim because it was dismissed. There also wasn’t a defamation claim (as it was dismissed) so the issue of damages couldn’t come up.
The problem with discussing these things with you is that you try to so hard to argue on things that you don’t understand, you keep going, even when you don’t get it. Seriously, look at how all of this started. You interjected yourself. Go back and see what Commenter_XY wrote… they were quoting the snippet of the opinion that dealt with the negligence claim. Which I replied to.
You didn’t get that, and you kept digging. More importantly, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “having a case” and “damages” – these are called the elements of a cause of action. So you just keep arguing, and because you didn’t understand the basic stuff to begin with, you keep going, not realizing that you look worse and worse, since you seize on things with a complete inability to understand.
If you read back through this, and you still don’t get it … well, that’s on you bud.
Holes, digging. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. And that's okay. But if you think you're somehow magically showing people on a legal blog that you know more about, oh, the actual legal issues than they do ... maybe not so much. I'm guessing you didn't even bother reading the linked court opinion because that would be actual work.
Be careful, Brett. Your hewing close to indicting Trump with that talk.
"Roice is a limited public figure with respect to this dispute."
How is a citizen filing a defamation suit supposed to know if the court will consider plaintiff as a limited public figure or not? If the answer is yes public, then the required arguments change. It sounds to me that plaintiff was blind sided by the court.
1. Ask a court.
2. Engage an experienced lawyer and obtain a sense of what the answer might be.
I thought the word "offensive" looked odd in my browser. The letter pair "ff" is represented by Unicode character 0xfb00 "Latin small ligature ff" instead of two letters "f". This is a sign of copying text that has been typeset.
Due Process prohibits punishing someone, taking their life, liberty, or property, over nothing more than someone’s opinion. Only facts can support a deprivation of life, linerty, or property.
So if whether or not someone is an “jnsurrectionist” is simply a question of opinion, the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause would contradict the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. Since the 14th Amendment also contains a Due Process Clause, the 14th Amendment’s bar on insurrectionists holding office. I therefore think the way the constitution’s text compels concluding that whether or not someone is an insurrectionist is a question of fact.
I am gravely troubled that libel law seems to have become like obscenity law, retaining the legal concepts in theory, but reducing the area of application to a virtual nullity. It seems virtually everything is classified as opinion these days. But if it’s all opinion, you can’t hold anybody to account for it. You can only hold people to account for facts.
Agreed. The scope of non-actionable "opinion" seems to be continually stretching.
Is calling someone a "murderer" fact or opinion? A "thief?"
As my torts prof said over and over when we covered defamation, it depends on the context.
I'm not sure defamation has shrunk much since Sullivan. Just more people are using what used to be factual accusations as bog-standard insults. See: groomer.
I would also say that more people have platforms on which to make asses of themselves.
So there's that.
I’d have to say it sometimes can be opinion. The seminal case is Kevorkian v. AMA. the Michigan AMA had written an editorial ccharacterizing Kevorkian’s assisted suicidide conduct as criminal. The opinion said that because Kevorkian had made himself a spokesperson for assisted suicide in the context of a broad public debate over whether it was or should be its legal, advocates of criminalizing it were entitled to use him as a representative of the conduct that they said should be refarded as a kind of criminal homicide.
This case is very different. This person was never a spokesperson for the invasion of the Capitol building on Jan 6. She never made those events a key element of her public persona. She never even participated in them. She merely showed up to the original rally, stayed outside the Capital building, and took a picture. For this reason, the Kevorkian case is completely inapplicable to her situation.
Having watched Kevorkian close up, I think the guy had a martyr complex, he was actively trying to get convicted. He had avoiding charges down to a science, he'd set up the equipment, then it was up to the patient/victim to activate it or not.
On that last case, he helpfully activated it for them, too. Yeah, that wasn't 'assisted' suicide at that point, he just straight up killed them.
It also seems that the plaintiff’s lawyer made a very basic beginner mistake, not pleading in the alternative based on both private figure status and public figure status. Since courts seem willing to regard virtually everyone as a public figure these days, every single libel plaintiff who wants to assert private-figure status and negligence should also take care to plead in the alternative, asserting actual malice in the event the plaintiff is found to be a public figure. Not doing this should be considered incompetent lawyering.
The complaint was dismissed. Okay. I wonder if the limitations period is still open so that the plaintiff can file a new complaint. Plaintiff should have sought competent counsel...counsel with experience in defamation. But I also wonder why the judge dismissed the case rather than give plaintiff's an opportunity to amend the complaint (or plaintiff should have responded to the motion to dismiss with an amended complaint...though maybe they did."
The order is linked. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by September 12.
This appears to be the complaint. It whines extensively and feebly from the culture war casualty perspective, but seems to constitute a reasonable effort. Paragraphs 111 and 112, in particular, appear to address your concern.
These plaintiffs -- who seem to have been still celebrating the insurrection a year later -- may have wanted and found lawyers who shared their disaffected, downscale, discredited perspective.
The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, as indicated by the document, is a graduate of South Texas College of Law Houston.
Is there a name for a Reverse-Streisand-Effect phenomenon? I'll admit to having a poor opinion of Alec Baldwin for any number of reasons related to his publicly expressed opinions (while also really enjoying much of his work since I'm adult and can separate the two). However, as a retired Marine, my takeaway from this post is primarily: good on Alec Baldwin for donating money to the family of one of the Marines we lost in Kabul.
I think murder would be a stretch, it would require him to have known the gun was loaded with live ammo, under the circumstances. Which wasn't entirely impossible, but where's the evidence?
Because if he pointed the gun at somebody who it wasn't supposed to be pointed at, and pulled the trigger, he was taking an unnecessary risk.
They were using the prop guns with live ammo for target practice while bored. QED live ammo (that would fit the gun) was on set and he was a producer and hence responsible for it not being.
IMHO that's somewhere between total innocence and total guilt.
Isn't "manslaughter" third degree murder?
As I understand it, first is premeditated, second is not, and third is depraved indifference. Or something like that...
You handle your dad's "Gun" a lot Queenie?
explains a lot.
That gets you to some degree of manslaughter, but not, I think, actual "murder".