California Anti-SLAPP Law Gives Rachel Maddow An Early Exit From Conservative News Network's Bogus Libel Lawsuit

from the and-now-OAN-will-have-to-pay-her-legal-bills dept

The only news network further to the right than Fox News has just seen its baseless libel lawsuit against MSNBC host Rachel Maddow dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP law. While Fox occasionally has to acknowledge the real world and employs a few newscasters critical of the President and his policies, One American News Network (OAN/OANN) apparently feels no compunction to address any issues honestly, preferring to curl up in the lap of the leader of the free world.

OAN sued after Maddow offered her commentary on a Daily Beast article that said the news network employed a "Kremlin-paid journalist." The journalist, Kristian Rouz, had been working for both OAN and the Kremlin-owned Sputnik, the latter of which was determined to be a participant in Russia's 2016 election interference effort.

Maddow's commentary was somewhat hyperbolic, and very critical of OAN and its double-agent journalist. But OAN took particular issue with a single phrase Maddow said during her broadcast. From the decision [PDF]:

Maddow states, “there is a lot of news today, but among the giblets the news gods dropped off their plates for us to eat off the floor today, is the actual news that this super right-wing news outlet that the President has repeatedly endorsed . . . we literally learned today that that outlet the President is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin. I mean, what?” She laughs and soon after says, “in this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.” (emphasis added). The underlined portion of the sentence highlights where Plaintiff takes issue.

MSNBC filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the suit, pointing out OAN's effort was just an attempt to stifle Constitutionally protected speech. Anti-SLAPP laws allow for fee-shifting, which makes it riskier for plaintiffs to pursue bogus lawsuits. But it also shifts some of the burden of proof to the defendants, who must show the targeted speech is actually protected.

First, the court points out that Maddow's MSNBC segment isn't the straightforward readings of newsworthy happenings. It is very much slanted towards opinion, which Maddow offers liberally (in both senses of the word). Since viewers know what to expect from Maddow, it's unlikely they would take all of her commentary to be factual assertions.

Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions. Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

There's also the context in which her statements were delivered, which includes her demeanor during the broadcast.

The “general tenor” of Maddow’s segment is a report on the Daily Beast article, and Maddow’s tone could be described as surprise and glee at the unexpectedness of the story. She begins by calling the story the “single most like sparkly story” in what had been “a more ridiculous than most day in the news.” She calls the news one among “the giblets the news gods dropped off their plates for us to eat off the floor today.” Maddow reports that OAN shares staff with the Kremlin and discusses the allegedly defamatory Russia connection, then follows this by saying (while laughing), “I mean, what?” She concludes the segment by saying, with a shake of the head, “I mean, this is the kind of news we are supposed to take in stride these days. And we do our best.”

As the court sees it, Maddow's piece accurately described the contents of the Daily Beast article, interspersed with her colorful interjections. Most of her coverage of OAN's Sputnik-employed journalist was "opinion and exaggeration." This includes the single sentence OAN sued over.

The court also points out the word "literally" no longer holds a single meaning, so relying on this word doesn't move OAN any closer to establishing its defamation claim.

Although Maddow used the word “literally,” this does not necessarily mean the phrase should be taken to be factual. Nowadays, as evidenced by the two conflicting definitions of the word “literally,” use of the word can be hyperbolic.

Even if "literally" were to be taken literally, it still wouldn't help OAN. The facts relayed by Maddow in her piece are indisputable. By that I mean OAN doesn't even dispute them. And as for Maddow's connection of OAN to Russian propaganda efforts, this was supported by her clarification and evidence from an outside source.

There is no dispute that Maddow discussed this article on her segment and accurately presented the article’s information. Indeed, the facts in the title of her segment are not alleged to be defamatory: “Staffer on Trump-favored network is on propaganda Kremlin payroll.” Plaintiff agrees that President Trump has praised OAN, and Rouz, a staffer for OAN, writes articles for Sputnik News which is affiliated with the Russian government. (See Compl. ¶ 24.) Rouz is paid for his work by Sputnik News. (Id. ¶ 26.) Maddow provided these facts in her segment before making the allegedly defamatory statement.

[...]

Further, in the sentence immediately following the contested sentence that OAN is “literally paid Russia propaganda,” Maddow said, almost as a clarification, that OAN’s “on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.” And, at the time Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement, the screen was showing the Daily Beast article accompanied by the text: “One of the on-air reporters at the 24-hour network is a Russian national on the payroll of the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet, Sputnik.” Thus, Maddow immediately qualified the allegedly defamatory statement with a factual clarification and viewers were seeing accurate information regarding OAN on the screen while listening to Maddow.

That ends OAN's lawsuit. And the court will not give OAN another chance to engage in this dumbassery again.

Because there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

With that, OAN is now on the hook for Maddow's legal fees, thanks to California's anti-SLAPP law. It's that simple. And it should be that way everywhere, which would head off the libel tourism we see on display in a handful of states. Giving defendants an early exit keeps them from being bled to death, and plaintiffs, who've had to pay their opponents' legal fees, will be less likely to use the federal court system vindictively to silence critics.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, california, defamation, free speech, kristian rouz, rachel maddow
Companies: msnbc, oann


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 4:14am

    You’ve won this time, Maddox!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 5:15am

    Accuracy? Context? Facts?

    What a shock that these are the things OANN say are the problem they have with Maddow's piece.

    /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 5:24am

    Because there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

    schadenfreude — noun — the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another; e.g., reading the above sentence

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 6:10am

    So what this judgement tells us, is:

    "Literally" literally doesn't mean literally.

    But then, ask any vocabulary nazi, and they would sigh and reminisce about the old days. Like, when a nazi literally was a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    TRX, 1 Jun 2020 @ 6:12am

    The only news network further to the right than Fox News

    [sniggers at the idea of Faux News being "right"...]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Reasonable Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 6:22am

    Leader of the Free World??

    One American News Network (OAN/OANN) apparently feels no compunction to address any issues honestly, preferring to curl up in the lap of the leader of the free world.

    I think it's high time to dispense with the notion that Donald Trump is the leader of the free world. He's no leader in any sense other than by virtue of his elected position, and it is disingenuous to portray the United States as exemplifying the ideals and aspirations of "the free world" when its president seems hell-bent on curtailing freedoms at every turn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bloof (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 6:43am

      Re: Leader of the Free World??

      He's also reneged on treaty after treaty and sits with his arms crossed like a sulky toddler whenever he's challenged. He cosies up to autocrats, sucks up to dictators all the while alienating America's traditional allies. The western world will never trust America again after this, because agreements are worthless when you're potentially four years away from another Trump.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 7:02am

        Re: Re: Leader of the Free World??

        The main takeout is that a bankrupt sociopathic con man gameshow host who lost the popular vote can still become president and sacrifice tens of thousands of lives on the altar of the DOW, and still get support as he cheers on the slaughter of those who oppose racially motivated murder.

        I hope you learn from that. The rest of us have issues, but the US have some majorly obvious ones.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 7:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Leader of the Free World??

          I look forward to the upcoming electoral loss of our esteemed congressional members who assisted the maniac potus, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins for example.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JoeCool (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 7:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Leader of the Free World??

            The problem is that the people in their districts don't want these criminals back in their district. Congress has long been a way of getting the worst people in town OUT of the town... at least for most of the year.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ryuugami, 1 Jun 2020 @ 9:05am

      Re: Leader of the Free World??

      I think it's high time to dispense with the notion that Donald Trump is the leader of the free world.

      I can't say if it was written sarcastically, but I certainly read it that way (like I did and will keep doing whenever that phrase is applied to DT).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Leader of the Free World??

      I think people use that phrase with some derision, really. Even at the best of times, with a decent president as presidents go, it's a pretty goddamn presumptuous phrase. Only certain types of people take it seriously. It's so pompous and grandiose, most would only even use it expressly for being derisive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 7:49am

    So Rachel Maddow doesn't deal in facts, only opinion.

    Got it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 1 Jun 2020 @ 8:34am

      Re:

      To me it sounded more like her facts were not in dispute, only her opinions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 9:27am

      Re:

      A person is not allowed to both have an opinion and state facts at the same time? Perhaps you have issue with the way in which a person informs the audience that it is their opinion rather than fact? I have watched her show several times and did not get this impression, but that is a small sample size. I doubt your opinion is close to the truth, that is my opinion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2020 @ 2:56pm

      Re:

      Just like Hannity. Wait, Maddow also reports facts, something Hannity doesn't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 11:48am

    'Sure you want that? Really, really sure?'

    Given who they employ I can't help but suspect that if this case had gone their way OAN might not have been happy with the result.

    'Opinion counts as defamation now? Alright, let's look through your recent and semi-recent reporting then shall we?'

    Nice to see a judge throw a SLAPP suit like this to the curb, now if only the rest of the country would get similar anti-SLAPP suits then maybe people would at least hesitate some before trying to use the courts to squash speech they don't like.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    tz1 (profile), 1 Jun 2020 @ 4:27pm

    Not quite, SLAPP gave her asylum

    The court found she is not a reporter or anyone dealing with facts but a clown that spews nonsense and everyone knows it and you can't be held to account for insane rantings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      SpaceLifeForm, 1 Jun 2020 @ 5:34pm

      QED

      "you can't be held to account for insane rantings."

      You rest your own case.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jun 2020 @ 12:59am

      Re: Not quite, SLAPP gave her asylum

      The court found she is not a reporter or anyone dealing with facts but a clown that spews nonsense and everyone knows it and you can't be held to account for insane rantings.

      Reader, this is not, at all, what the court found. This is just what tz1 wants to believe because he hates Maddow and loves OANN, so facts don't matter to him. Even in a case about facts.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.