Trump Prevails In Twitter Defamation Battle With GOP Consultant
by Wendy Davis, Staff Writer @wendyndavis, January 11, 2017
President-elect Donald Trump didn’t defame Republican consultant Cheryl Jacobus by tweeting that she was “a real dummy” who once “begged” his people for a job, a judge in New York ruled this week.
That’s because Trump’s frequent insults of detractors on Twitter makes his tweets less likely to be taken seriously, according to Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe.
“His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko,’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration,” Jaffe wrote.
Jaffe’s ruling stemmed from a defamation lawsuit filed by Jacobus last year. The battle began in February, shortly after Jacobus appeared on CNN, where she made less-than-flattering statements about Trump. That same day, Trump responded by tweeting that she “begged” the campaign for a job. “We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy!” he continued
Three days later, Trump posted a second tweet about her: “Really dumb @CheriJacobus,” he wrote. “Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility.”
Jacobus alleged in her complaint that she had been “actively recruited” by the Trump campaign, but that “boorish behavior” by former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski led her “to conclude that she would not be comfortable” working for the campaign.
“Never did she sacrifice her integrity or objectivity in retaliation for not being hired by the Trump Campaign, a job she did not actively pursue, after a brief, courteous, and professional exploration,” her lawsuit alleged.
Trump’s legal team argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the tweets were opinion, as opposed to verifiable statements of fact. “The alleged defamatory statements here are permeated with vague, hyperbolic, and figurative language about plaintiff’s state of mind,” his lawyers argued. “Calling a person ‘a real dummy’ or a ‘major loser,’ or saying that a person has ‘zero credibility, may be subjectively offensive to that person, but it does not change the legal reality that the statements — as offensive as they may be to the plaintiff — are protected opinion speech, and thus not defamatory as a matter of law.”
Jaffe accepted Trump’s argument. “Considering the statements as a whole (imprecise and hyperbolic political dispute cum schoolyard squabble), I find that it is fairly concluded that a reasonable reader would recognize defendants’ statements as opinions, even if some of the statements, viewed in isolation, could be found to convey facts,” she wrote.
MediaPost.com: Search Marketing Daily
(26)
