Earlier today, in my angry mood at Tewksbury, I had Twitter words with one Lee Stranahan, self-styled journalist currently seen on Sputnik and InfoWars. That spat was tawdry and need not detain you. But it reminded me I hadn't mentioned a problematical defamation case about him.
Brennan Gilmore sued a whole pack of lunatic-fringe mock-journalists, including Stranahan, after the neo-Nazi murder of Heather Heyer at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Gilmore observed and commented on the murder and posted a video on social media. Various lunatics, noting that Gilmore is a Foreign Service Officer, began pushing a narrative that he is a deep-state Soros-funded operative there to support a coup against Trump, with related word-salad. That's the world we live in.
Gilmore sued a bunch of them for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming entirely credibly that he'd been swamped with death threats as a result of their conspirabation. This post concerns only one small bit of that claim — the bit against Lee Stranahan. See, Stranahan was interviewed for an InfoWars video entitled "Bombshell Connection Between Charlottesville, Soros, CIA." The video features Stranahan Stranahanning:
STRANAHAN: If you go to Brennan Gilmore’s page, his Twitter page,
you’ll see he has a picture of the young woman who was murdered, and you
know what is says? “Martyr.” . . . Literally it says “martyr.” You can’t be
more explicit than this. So here’s what I’m saying. I’m not a conspiracy
theorist, I’m a fact-based journalist. The facts are enough. However, the
Democrats have investigated Trump for a lot less. For a lot less. They have
called for investigations, and secret meetings, they have convened the FBI.
When you have this many things going on, I think someone really needs to
investigate. . .[MCADOO scrolls through Gilmore’s Twitter page]
STRANAHAN: Yeah, if you scroll…keep scrolling…this is the guy,
Brennan Gilmore, and if you scroll down, keep going, it’s not too far, you’ll
see the photo of the young woman…this is abs [sic]…when I saw this, uh,
I was shocked…by the way, his bio, if you look at this guy’s bio, it says
he’s with the State Department, and the fact that he called her a ‘martyr’. .
. I [STRANAHAN looks knowingly at the camera, eyebrows raised, arm
raised, MCADOO nods comprehendingly, laughs] don’t know, but this is
clearly, the way she’s being used is she’s a martyr to the cause. . . .STRANAHAN: And let me point out what’s happening. They, uh, they win
no matter what they do. Are they trying to get a coup? I think clearly they
are. But if they can’t get a coup, they’ll settle for impeachment. And if they
can’t get impeachment, they’ll settle for smearing Trump and his supporters
so much that they’ll be able to elect another elitists. Does that make sense?MCADOO: Absolutely.
This is the premise of Gilmore's defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Stranahan. And it's bogus. Stranahan's speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Only false statements of provable fact are potentially defamatory. The First Amendment absolutely protects opinion when that opinion is based on disclosed facts, however ludicrous and evil the opinion is. Here, Stranahan discloses his facts, which are undisputed: Gilmore had a picture of the Heyer and referred to her as a martyr, and Gilmore works for the State Department. From these undisputed facts Stranahan spins his opinion: these facts show a conspiracy against Trump, the conspiracy is trying to get a coup or impeachment or smear Trump supporters, and so on. It's an opinion only an evil or diseased mind would offer. But it's a protected opinion — just like my saying look at this specific thing Stranahan did, he's crazy or evil. If Stranahan had said "based on documents I've reviewed I think Gilmore is a Soros-paid deep state operative and organized the killing as a false flag," that would be potentially defamatory, because it's based on undisclosed facts — the "documents." Here, an opinion based on clearly disclosed facts — no matter how vile, moronic, or disturbed — is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Similarly, because it's a discussion on a political matter of public interest, it's also almost certainly protected from the intentional infliction claim under Snyder v. Phelps.
Stranahan's lawyer Aaron Walker — whom you may recall had to fight for his own First Amendment rights against domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin — has ably made this point in his motion to dismiss, along with other points beyond the scope of this post.
I think Lee Stranahan — who currently works for Sputnik, funded by a hostile foreign power seeking to undermine our nation and its values — is morally responsible for the threatening response his bizarre and contemptible speculation predictably generated from his scary audience. But he's not legally responsible. His speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should be. His consequence is to remain Lee Stranahan, admired by the sort of people who admire Lee Stranahan and scorned by everyone else.
I note that today Stranahan posted a video of himself ranting about me as he walked down the street. One of his points was that free speech is only valuable if it is premised on rational discourse. The quote above, willingly offered to InfoWars, is what he considers rational discourse. I refute it thus.
Copyright 2017 by the named Popehat author. https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/24/about-the-bogus-defamation-claim-against-lee-stranahan/
No comments:
Post a Comment