Below is my column in the Hill on the defamation lawsuit facing actor Alec Baldwin. Where Baldwin famously adopted the persona of Trump for Saturday Night Live, he will now likely adopt his actual legal defense to fend off the family of a Marine killed in Afghanistan. If you found it hard to tell the difference between the two personalities, it is going to get a lot worse in McCollum v. Baldwin.
Here is the column:
Alec Baldwin has never been known for restraint — just ask his lawyers. After the lethal shooting on the set of the movie “Rust,” Baldwin, 63, explained to reporters that his counsel strongly instructed him not to comment on the case, but then launched into a detailed discussion of it. Baldwin is known for his outbursts involving everyone from photographers to drivers
The latest Baldwin litigation involves the family of a U.S. Marine killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. It combines Baldwin’s reputation for liberal politics and his impulsive temperament — and a demand for $25 million.
Here is the ultimate irony: In defense of this lawsuit, Baldwin is likely to make an argument strikingly similar to — wait for it — Donald Trump’s. Although Baldwin won an Emmy for playing Trump, his toughest performance may be yet to come in defending his own inflammatory rhetoric.
All of this began over a modest but kind gesture to the family of a slain soldier.
Baldwin gave $5,000 to Jiennah Crayton, the widow of Marine Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum, to help her with their newborn daughter. McCollum was killed in the Aug. 26 suicide attack in Kabul at a processing point for refugees during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Baldwin made the contribution through McCollum’s sister, Roice, and called the check a “tribute to a fallen soldier.”
That should have been the end of a nice story.
However, Roice later shared a photo on Instagram of herself at the Washington Monument, participating in the Jan. 6 protest over the 2020 presidential election. The photo did not show her rioting on Capitol Hill, and she insists she did not join in any wrongdoing. She says she merely exercised her right to protest the election, and that did not make her an Oath Keeper.
Indeed, a complaint she filed against Baldwin states: “During the rioting, she was stuck in place outside the Capitol Building next to multiple police officers for hours after the rioting began due to the fact that so many people were around her and the area had been locked down. … Later, a neighbor who was unhappy that Roice attended the demonstration turned her into the authorities.”
Roice was interviewed by the FBI and reportedly cleared of wrongdoing.
Baldwin, in signature style, was enraged; he seemed to believe that sending a modest contribution to the wife of a dead Marine gave him some say over the sister’s political speech. He wrote: “When I sent the $ for your late brother, out of real respect for his service to this country, I didn’t know you were a January 6th rioter.”
Roice responded correctly that “protesting is perfectly legal in the country and I’ve already had my sit down with the FBI. Thanks, have a nice day!”
Baldwin, however, took the issue public and seemed to taunt Roice that he would make her infamous: “I don’t think so. Your activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, an assault on the certification of the presidential election. I reposted your photo. Good luck.”
Baldwin then reposted the photo and labeled Roice an “insurrectionist” with his 2.4 million Instagram followers.
Baldwin must have known what could happen next. He maintains a feverish political following on the left, due to his portrayal of Trump and his regular statements on politics. The posting unleashed some of his followers, who hounded the family and denounced them in the same fashion. That included, according to the complaint, statements like “Get raped and die … . Your brother got what he deserved.”
The complaint declares that “Baldwin’s comments were false, outrageous, defamatory, irresponsible, vindictive and caused – and continue to cause — plaintiffs severe emotional distress. Instead of being able to focus on grieving LCPL McCollum’s death and raising his newborn daughter, plaintiffs and their family are now fearful for their lives.”
The defamation case will raise interesting questions. First will be the family’s status. As discussed yesterday in a different case, public figures or “limited public figures” face a higher standard of proof in defamation cases. It could be claimed that Roice became a limited public figure subject to the higher standard of proof in New York Times v. Sullivan. That standard, written for public officials, was later extended to public figures. The Supreme Court has held that “public figure” status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A “limited-purpose public figure” status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
At some point in this public squabble, Roice became a public figure. Indeed, in her public comments on her fallen brother, she might have crossed the line before Baldwin came into her life. As a public figure or limited public figure, she would need to satisfy the actual malice standard. That is itself ironic in that Baldwin, the ultimate celebrity, will be able to hit Roice (who just a few years ago was simply a lifeguard in Wyoming) with the higher burden meant for figures like himself. Roice and her family will have to show “actual malice” — knowledge of the falsity of a statement or reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
There does not seem to be any question that Roice was not a rioter. However, Baldwin is likely to argue that referring to Trump supporters as “insurrectionists” is an opinion rather than a literal reference to a criminal act. While I was critical of Trump’s speech when he was still giving it and condemned the attack at the Capitol, I have always maintained that this was a protest that turned into a riot. I still believe that, despite recent sedition conspiracy charges against a small number of the thousands protesting that day.
Baldwin can always argue “truth” as the classic defense to defamation. However, it is not literally true that Roice was a rioter or an insurrectionist in terms of her actions. So Baldwin may have to do his best Trump imitation to date — before an audience of one: a judge. Baldwin likely will have to argue that he is not responsible for his followers’ actions and that he was merely expressing his own political views. Moreover, he will argue that his use of inflammatory rhetoric is constitutionally protected. The reference to Roice being a “rioter” and an “insurrectionist,” he may argue, referred to her support for a movement that sought to overturn the election and led, ultimately, to a riot.
He may be successful. His public attacks on the family may make him a horrible person — but the hyperbolic reference to “rioters” and “insurrectionists” is common today in both political and media statements. Those labels are used widely to refer to Trump supporters, painting them as sharing responsibility for the Capitol riot.
Baldwin is particularly known for reckless rhetoric, such as saying that Trump should be buried in a Nazi cemetery with a swastika on his grave. For his part, Trump seems to relish Baldwin’s role in the fatal shooting of his director of photography, Halyna Hutchins. For some time, the two have seemed to be morphing in their unpredictable, often insulting tirades; now, they could adopt a shared defense.
The Washington Post once ran a column about the difficulty of knowing if controversial lines were uttered by Trump or by Baldwin portraying Trump. One of Baldwin’s last lines as Trump on SNL may now prove eerily prophetic: “This isn’t goodbye, America. I’m just going to say, ‘See you in court.'”
I have never liked Baldwin as a person, though he’s been good in some movie rolls and on SNL. I lost any respect for him when he failed to keep his promise to leave the country if Bush were re-elected. He’s a hothead and an a-hole. I do have some measure of pity for him in this instance. It was really nice (and the article mistakenly referred to it as “modest”) that he gave significant money to the family of a fallen soldier. He should have donated through a charity perhaps. But then, his really kind and humane gesture went in the ditch when he acted as the person we all know and despise. That’s too bad. I wonder if he’ll ever have a moment of reflection and insight when he considers his own actions and how they contribute to him being such a crap magnet. Probably not.
“… I reposted your photo. Good luck.”
THAT is evidence of actual malice. He knew what he was doing and the threat his actions implied.
I think the actual malice standard is met by the fact that Baldwin HATES all Trump supporters.
What you should really be concerned about. In 2022, under federal law – Trump’s most extreme supporters are now in the very same legal class as supporters of Osama Bin Laden. Today, the vast majority of so-called “terror persons-of-interest” are domestic supporters of Trump.
Democrats aren’t safe either, once you grant unconstitutional and extrajudicial powers to officials, that knife cuts both ways. What’s most dangerous is if you are a target, you likely won’t know it for years or even decades.
Right now all voters should be asking Congress to amend these federal laws, including Title 18 US Code 3144 (federal Material Witness Statute). Under this statute, the Attorney General can have you fired from your job while slapping a gag order on your employer. This can happen for several decades destroying your income producing potential – without your knowledge.
Congress and state legislatures have granted state-operated “Fusion Centers” nearly full exemption from Freedom of Information Act requests. You can’t even file a FOIA to find out if you have been illegally blacklisted. There are billions of dollars of post-9/11 Preemption & Prevention grants that incentivizes illegal blacklisting. The more persons-of-interest, the more money they make.
While politicians are dividing us, both Republicans and Democrats can be targeted for no wrongdoing whatsoever. You can be destroyed for legal First Amendment activity. Officials aren’t educated on their own Oath of Office employment contract. Overturn these unconstitutional laws! Call your members of Congress and state legislatures and outlaw “covert blacklisting tactics like Cointelpro”.
Turley makes a very weak argument about the woman becoming a public figure.
He wrote:
“At some point in this public squabble, Roice became a public figure. Indeed, in her public comments on her fallen brother, she might have crossed the line before Baldwin came into her life.”
The argument Turley is making is wrong. What of Roice’s First Amendment rights? Suppose she makes a tweet where she has a handful of followers. But the tweet goes viral. Does that make her a public figure? What about ‘Joe the plumber’? In this example, he made some very public comments that went viral. He had his 15min of fame. Where is he today … over a decade later? Is he a public figure?
The point is that exercising one’s 1st Amendment Rights, aka ‘Free speech’, alone doesn’t make us a public figure.
If Turley is correct, then the nexus occurred when Baldwin stepped in to the mix. Not prior.
And with respect to Baldwin claiming he can’t be held responsible for the actions of his followers… comparing him to Trump… that too may be a fallacy.
First Trump did caution those at the speech to be peaceful in their protest. (Most were. In fact those that broke into the Capitol were not actually at Trump’s rally The time line proves this. Also Baldwin can’t claim ignorance. Someone w Baldwin’s number of followers is clearly an ‘influencer’ so he knows, or should have known that his tweets can cause his fans to react.
Also harassing an individual is not a ‘peaceful protest’.
While Turley is offering his opinion on a possible defence of Baldwin… he’s not making a strong case for Baldwin’s defense.
-Gumby
Hollywood is nothing more than a collection of crackheads and whores.
His legal team certainly has job security.
Baldwin is a witless, soulless, swollen-headed little man which, of course, is de rigueur in Hollywood. That kinda mindless arrogance doesn’t play well in front of judges and juries. Especially in front of judges and juries hearing cases brought by Gold Star families. To quote another entertainer Billy Joel, about saying words out of line :
Say a word out of line and you find
That the friends you had are gone
Forever, forever
So many faces in and out of my life
Some will last, some will just be now and then
Life is a series of hellos and goodbyes
I’m afraid it’s time for goodbye again
Say goodbye to Hollywood
Say goodbye my baby
Say goodbye to Hollywood
Say goodbye my baby
To Everyone (Sam, STEVEN RISHER, et al) And To No One
The United States, its Executive, President Biden, has “frozen” 9 Billion dollars (Federal Reserve Notes, Where? In New York City. Where? at the New York Federal Reserve, How? The F.R.N. is the reserve currency and more than 80% of all Transactions occur in “dollars” and all scarce and natural resources must be purchased in F.R.N.) … again, The United States, its Executive, President Biden, has “frozen” 9 Billion dollars of the Afghanistan Government’s legally and rightly possessed currency, again “dollars,” Federal Reserve Notes.
The United States, and only the United States, decides who is the legal government of any country in the world.
The United States, and only the United States, decides who may legally and rightfully possess their own currency, again “dollars,” Federal Reserve Notes.
The American Empire decides who lives, who dies, who gets their own money, who gets food, who gets medicine … video:
https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
God Bless America!?
dennis hanna
“The United States, its Executive, President Biden, has “frozen” 9 Billion dollars of the Afghanistan Government’s legally and rightly possessed currency . . .”
Bleeding dry a barbaric theocracy is always a good thing. Now, if only we can get back the some $80 billion in military equipment that Biden left behind for our “friends”, the Taliban.
“legally and rightly possessed” (?!)
There is no such thing in a dictatorship. Further, much of that $9 billion is foreign aid (not “their own money”) — which means that it is money looted from American taxpayers. Are you suggesting that Americans fund their own destroyers?
Finally, you left out a salient fact about *why* that $9 billion was frozen from the *Taliban*. 9/11 victims (remember them?) received a default judgment for some $7 billion. That $7 billion is “legally and rightly” owed by the Taliban to those victims. Hopefully, out of that $9 billion, they will receive their $7 billion. (Give the other $2 billion to the victims of the lockdowns.)
Sam, too late on the remaining $2B. Hunter has it.
“…a protest that turned into a riot…”. Maybe for some, but other so-called “protesters” brought bear-spray, zip-ties and stockpiled weapons at the nearby hotel. A premeditated detailed plan to bring these things into the Washington DC area.
I’ve never known any legal peaceful protesters, at any other event, to bring these things – including weapons – to exercise their First Amendment rights. Have there been any bear attacks in downtown DC?
As far as Trump, his biggest problem maybe be his disloyalty to his own Oath of Office. Trump promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution to the best of his ability. Cheering at the TV set broadcasting rioters breaking into the Capitol building – doing nothing to stop it – seems extremely disloyal to his supreme loyalty oath under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Most of the judges that ruled the election results were legitimate, were GOP appointed judges. Trump knew the election results were legitimate.
“72nd Night of ‘Black Lies Malevolence’ Unrest”
Are you out of your —-ing mind?
The slaves said all they wanted was their freedom – what happened?
my family voted for trump and if he runs again we will
vote for him again the libs pro china want him out of the way
its all about money from the chinese.
Sorry AZ, , “Cheering at the TV set broadcasting rioters breaking into the Capitol building – doing nothing to stop it” is a lie and you are just spreading misinformation. There is absolutely NO proof in your accusation…For god sakes man, take with a grain of salt what you read in media and the internet.