In a notable legal decision, a Florida judge has ruled against dismissing Donald Trump's defamation suit against ABC News and its host, George Stephanopoulos.
A lawsuit by former President Donald Trump against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos, claiming defamation, will proceed in Florida court.
The dispute centers around Stephanopoulos’s comments during the "This Week" broadcast on March 10, 2024, where he stated that Trump had been "found liable for rape" in a previous defamation trial involving E. Jean Carroll. However, the jury had actually found Trump liable for sexual abuse, not rape under New York Penal Law, leading to Trump's defamation claim against the news anchor and the network.
The legal challenge hinges on the nuances between the terms 'sexual abuse' and 'rape,' which Trump argues were conflated by Stephanopoulos. This misrepresentation formed the basis of Trump’s lawsuit, as the jury in the Carroll case did not conclude Trump committed rape.
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court in Florida, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued a 21-page decision rejecting the motion to dismiss. She emphasized that the “fair report privilege,” often a defense in defamation cases, does not apply when the reporting is misleading or lacks essential context.
The ruling pointed out that the specific language used by Stephanopoulos might mislead viewers, thereby necessitating further judicial examination of the case.
In her decision, Judge Altonaga noted that whether Stephanopoulos’s statements were reasonable was not a matter to be decided at the dismissal stage. She articulated, “Defendants have not met their burden of proving the fair report privilege applies,” thus setting the stage for a more detailed examination in court.
Moreover, Altonaga mentioned, “Any remaining questions as to the reasonableness of Stephanopoulos’s statements are not for resolution on a motion to dismiss.” This comment underscores the complexity of defamation law where nuances in language can significantly impact legal outcomes.
ABC News and Stephanopoulos defended their broadcast, arguing that their statements were substantially true based on Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s interpretations during the related Carroll trials. Kaplan had observed that while the jury's findings did not specify 'rape,' they could be equated to rape in common parlance.
The defense also suggested that Kaplan's rulings should preclude Trump's defamation claims. However, Altonaga found that the context and statements in Stephanopoulos's broadcast were distinct enough to warrant a full trial.
The implications of this decision are significant, as they challenge the bounds of journalistic responsibility and the protections afforded under the fair report privilege.
With Altonaga’s ruling, the case now moves forward to more in-depth proceedings. Both parties are expected to present detailed evidence and arguments, clarifying the context and implications of Stephanopoulos’s statements.
This progression into a full trial underscores the often complex and delicate nature of defamation law, particularly when it involves high-profile figures and nuanced legal definitions.
The outcome of this case may have broader implications for how public figures and media outlets interact and the legal responsibilities media entities face when reporting on judicial outcomes.
Following the judge’s decision, Trump took to Truth Social to comment on the ruling, describing it as a “BIG WIN” and criticizing ABC News and Stephanopoulos for what he termed "FAKE NEWS." His post emphasized his ongoing campaign against what he perceives as biased media coverage, highlighting his MAGA2024 slogan.
Meanwhile, ABC News has been contacted for comments but has not yet responded. This lawsuit has attracted significant media attention, reflecting the ongoing tension between Trump and the press.
As the case develops, further insights are expected into how defamation claims are handled when public figures are involved and the legal thresholds for proving or disproving such claims.
