Apparently One Dismissed Speech-Suppressing SLAPP Suit Wasn’t Enough For Matt Taibbi

Defamation

from the vampire-squid-strikes-again dept

To lose one speech-suppressing SLAPP suit may be regarded as thoughtless. To lose two looks like you’re a censorial hack.

Last month we wrote about how supposed “free speech warrior” Matt Taibbi (who spent years misrepresenting the work of people who study disinformation as inherently censorial, while getting pretty basic facts wrong) had lost his speech suppressing SLAPP suit against author Eoin Higgins. In that case, he argued that some rhetorically hyperbolic metaphors used on the book’s cover defamed him. The court pointed out that’s not at all how defamation works.

Taibbi, who also claimed he somehow had to sue to “protect free speech” (also not how it works) apparently wasn’t satisfied with just a single SLAPP suit. He also had sued congressional Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove in a separate action, claiming that her calling him a “serial sexual harasser” (and entering into the record two articles to support that claim) during a congressional hearing was defamation. If you’re interested, the two articles that were entered into the record were the Chicago Reader’s “Twenty years ago, in Moscow, Matt Taibbi was a misogynist asshole—and possibly worse” and the Washington Post’s “The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow.“

The hearing in question was yet another in a ridiculously long line of congressional hearings (multiple ones where Taibbi has appeared peddling nonsense) about the supposed “censorship industrial complex,” a mostly made-up concept pushed by political hacks trying to shield online trolls and bullies from ever facing consequences from private actors for breaking the clearly stated policies of online platforms.

Kamlager-Dove chose to question Taibbi’s credibility. You could argue she could have focused on the factual problems with his continued confused claims about how disinformation research and trust & safety work — but she went for the more salacious (and widely reported) claims about his time in Moscow from a few decades ago, along with a characterization that reads as a clear opinion based on disclosed facts, which (by definition) cannot be defamatory.

As you may be aware, things said in Congress tend to be protected by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. Taibbi’s lawyers claimed that because Kamlager-Dove reposted videos of her remarks on social media, that somehow took them outside the clause’s protection. For her part, Kamlager-Dove pointed to the Westfall Act which (as we’ve discussed in the past) allows the government itself to substitute in as a defendant in cases filed against government employees if the lawsuit was based on government work they were doing. In defamation cases, this is fatal: once the federal government substitutes itself in as defendant, the case collapses, because you simply can’t sue the federal government for defamation thanks to sovereign immunity.

Here, the case fails on those grounds exactly. Judge Evelyn Padin finds that the Westfall Act does apply, effectively dooming the case. Taibbi’s lawyers tried to argue that Kamlager-Dove’s statements weren’t part of her job as Congress… because her comments were “partisan communications” and were for “self-aggrandizement on Twitter” rather than serving her constituents. Except politicians making self-aggrandizing partisan communications is (unfortunately) part of their job these days.

Representative Kamlager-Dove’s Statements and republications, however, are precisely the kind of conduct that is “a central part of the job for members of Congress.”…. Indeed, a “primary obligation of a [m]ember of Congress in a representative democracy is to serve and respond to his or her constituents.” …. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee holding the Hearing. Representative Kamlager-Dove’s remarks mentioned “taxpayer time and resources” and “foreign policy” topics that are important to members of Congress and that are top-of-mind for their constituents….

Republishing the statements online does not change the analysis. Taibbi claims that the “republications on X, BlueSky, and [Representative Kamlager-Dove’s] website were not legislative work, [and] occurred outside the legislative setting.” …. But members of Congress routinely engage with the public on social media and on the internet as part of their jobs…. (“There is no meaningful difference between tweets and the other kinds of public communications between an elected official and their constituents that have been held to be within the scope-of-employment under the Westfall Act.”). As Taibbi concedes, Representative Kamlager-Dove was simply “talking to voters on Twitter.” …

Thus, while the judge doesn’t get a chance to dismiss the censorial SLAPP suit for being a censorial SLAPP suit, the court does make it pretty clear you can’t sue over this kind of thing.

Two SLAPP suits filed to silence critics. Both dismissed. This is a guy who built his recent brand on the Twitter Files and the “censorship industrial complex” — and who has been a key cog in helping the government suppress speech in the process. He’s now spent quite a lot of time trying to use the courts to shut people up for criticizing him — and failing at that, too.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, matt taibbi, slapp, slapp suit, sydney kamlager-dove, westfall act