“Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday against Hillary Clinton seeking $50 million in damages, claiming the former Democratic presidential nominee ‘carelessly and recklessly impugned’ her reputation when she suggested in October that one of the 2020 Democratic candidates is ‘the favorite of the Russians.'” [Erik Ortiz, NBC News; Jonathan Adler (“quite skeptical” as to “whether the suit gets anywhere on the merits”); Christian Britschgi, Reason; text of complaint; Popehat] Related update, March: judge tosses Gabbard’s separate case against Google.
Harvard law professor and political activist Lawrence Lessig, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination but withdrew before the primaries, “has filed a defamation lawsuit against the NY Times, its executive Editor Dean Baquet, its Business Editor Ellen Pollock, and reporter Nellie Bowles. Lessig is upset about the way some blog posts he made were portrayed by the NY Times…. saying this is his attack on what he calls ‘clickbait defamation.'” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt]
One Comment
Gabbard’s lawsuit, for all the “fluff” (for lack of a better word) has a legitimate chance. The issue, as I see it, is whether calling Gabbard (no one believes that Hillary wasn’t referring to Gabbard) a “Russian asset” by implication accuses Gabbard of cooperating with Russia, i.e., being in cahoots with Russia.