Alec Baldwin’s Trump Defense: A Torts Case Where Imitation Merged With Litigation

I previously wrote a column on what I described as Alex Baldwin’s greatest imitation of Donald Trump . . . in a lawsuit. Baldwin was sued for a reprehensible attack on on the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Rylee J. McCollum, killed in the Aug. 26 suicide attack in Kabul during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.. He falsely accused the marine’s sister Roice McCollum of being an “insurrectionist”  but insisted that his rhetoric was protected political speech and that he was not responsible for how third parties responded to his inflammatory postings on social media.  Baldwin’s channeling of Trump arguments in court has proven equally successful. As expected, a court has ruled for Baldwin after finding that the sister of the fallen Marine was a limited public figure.

Baldwin gave $5,000 to Jiennah Crayton, the widow, 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.

When Roice sued, Baldwin made an argument strikingly similar to — wait for it — Donald Trump’s. Although Baldwin won an Emmy for playing Trump, his toughest performance was defending his own inflammatory rhetoric in Trump-like terms.

At the time, I noted that the defamation case would raise some interesting questions:

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.

That indeed proved to be the winning issue for Baldwin.

In  McCollum v. Baldwin, Judge Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of New York ruled:

Roice is a limited public figure with respect to this dispute. Roice posted the January 6 demonstration photo publicly on Instagram, with a caption that expressed her political views as a participant, in anticipation of the demonstration’s one-year anniversary, and she voluntarily engaged in conversations with Baldwin—a well-known celebrity. Furthermore, as set forth above, Roice voluntarily injected herself into the public realm by appearing on several news sites in the aftermath of her brother’s death and before this action was filed. Thus, because Roice is a limited public figure with respect to the controversy, her defamation claims must be dismissed unless she adequately pleads that Baldwin made the comments with actual malice.

Here, the Court agrees with Baldwin that Roice did not sufficiently plead actual malice and that his comments are protected under the First Amendment. While Plaintiffs claim that “[Baldwin] knew, or should have known, that [publishing potentially false comments] would result in an avalanche of violently negative attacks on Plaintiffs,” this allegedly negligent conduct does not meet the threshold of actual malice. Instead, the question here is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently assert that Baldwin personally believed his statements were false. However, … Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support their proposition that Baldwin knew or believed his comments referring to Roice as an “insurrectionist” were false when he posted them. To the contrary, their allegation—”[Baldwin] posted what he believed was [Roice’s] image on her Instagram feed to his 2.4 million followers and continued labelling [Roice] an ‘insurrectionist'”—suggests that Baldwin posted what he believed was true. Thus, Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead that Baldwin intentionally posted false and defamatory statement with actual malice….

According to Roice, Baldwin’s “re-publication [Roice’s photo] and subsequent incitement to his 2.4 million followers” amounts to defamation…. [T]he Court concludes that Roice fails to allege that the post contains any false information: she admits that she was present at the demonstration in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, when and where she took the photo that she later publicly posted, and that Baldwin reposted. In fact, the complaint makes clear that the substance of Baldwin’s post was true: Roice is Rylee’s sister, her sister-in-law did receive a $5,000 donation from Baldwin, and Roice did participate in the demonstration in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, where she took the photo of herself that was reposted by Baldwin. Thus, Baldwin’s post is not defamatory….

Judge Ramos also rejected the negligence claims on a distinctly Trumpian defense: Baldwin cannot be blamed for how his supporters responded to his inflammatory rhetoric: “Even though Baldwin’s followers, as third parties, may have reacted to Baldwin’s opinion in an offensive manner, there is no obligation to protect a bystander … from an emotional injury.”

Thus, Baldwin’s imitation of Trump appears to have yielded dividends beyond mere ratings. The Washington Post once noted in a column about the difficulty of knowing if controversial lines were uttered by Trump or by Baldwin portraying Trump.  So as Baldwin stated in one of his last peformances as Trump on SNL: “This isn’t goodbye, America. I’m just going to say, ‘See you in court.’”

55 thoughts on “Alec Baldwin’s Trump Defense: A Torts Case Where Imitation Merged With Litigation”

  1. Jonathan
    I must be brain dead, because I cant’t make a correlation between BALDWIN’s defense and one Trump might deploy (among many). So instead I am gonna obfuscate that since the PLAINTIFF lost, this case has no bearing. I know, a third grader could see it, but I am the smartest person here, and my circular reasoning is far beyond what an amateur like you could understand. ‘Dat redneck judge down dare in ‘lanta gone put da screws to dat yankee and laugh him out da court.
    I live in the AMA, and I just so happen to know the Georgia attorney who is representing Gugliani, but Dennis says he aint got one, so i’ll let him know he is off the case.
    I also know the man who is paying for Jenna’s attorney, because she is “one hot momma”, so no need for you to worry about that pressing issue.
    Let me give you a little secret Jonathan. I am brilliant. I only bring up who is paying for legal fees because if i do, it makes it look more like a conspiracy. Get that?? Trump should pay the fees of his co-conspirators, not his co-defendants. I know, i am slick and say defendant but any 3rd grader can see through my stupid little con.
    Did i mention that despite reports in the press, Fani is a brilliant prosecutor who gunna spank DJT fanny? I know, she dont have a clue how “all that computer stuff work”, or how her indictment got posted online before it was handed down. But what the heck, I guess thats just how justice is done down here in Georgia, y’all. Just like Fani planned it.

    Now for the important stuff


    “There’s a red under my bed
    And there’s a little orange man in my head
    And he said, “You’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad
    ‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”

    Now, off to my whiffyoga class. The bug and Gigi are joining me today. Smeagol would but he had an unfortunate accident in yesterday’s class. He got his head stuck. I dont think i gotta tell ya where.

  2. Jonathan
    Those wascally wabbits of DJT keep twying to get away. But be vewy vewy quiet, Fani is hunting wabbit. Fani gonna spank they fannies!

    I dont really think i have a good idea of how justice works in Fulton county georgia, but what i do know is Dennis doesnt have a f-ing clue. He ahould bring his a$$ down here and get a closer look before he runs that mouth.
    If Dennis had a clue about whats what in Fulton County, he’d know that Labat is about 100 deputies short of a full staff, so he probably wont be chasing down people who arent even in Georgia, much less the AMA. But hey, it’s his wet dream, so we’ll let him have it.
    More tool time tomorrow. Its too late today


    “There’s a red under my bed
    And there’s a little orange man in my head
    And he said, “You’re not going crazy, you’re just a bit sad
    ‘Cause there’s a man in ya, gnawing ya, tearing ya into two”

  3. Jonathan: Some of DJT’s co-defendants in the Fani Willis case in Fulton County are trying all sorts of delaying tactics–like the big boss. Mark Meadows has filed a motion to remove his case to federal court. As part of his filing Meadows is asking a federal judge to delay his arrest and processing while he pursues his claim. Fani Willis is having none of it. Yesterday, Fani Willis rejected Meadows request for voluntary surrender to be deferred until his federal motion can be heard. In no uncertain terms she said: “I am not granting any extension. I gave 2 weeks for people to surrender themselves to the Court. The two weeks was a tremendous courtesy. At 12;30 pm on Friday I shall file warrants [for Meadows arrest] in the system”. Willis means business. So Mark,If you don’t show up on Friday the Fulton County Sheriff is going to come looking for you! That’s how the justice system works in Georgia. Everyone is treated the same–even the former Chief of Staff for DJT!

    1. Check it out Dennis
      You were liked by one person (or bot) again.
      I am sure it was worth your time though.

      By the way
      Which of these was the lie?

      “Democrats like violence for the right reasons and call for it all the time”—-Dennis

      “The only one calling for violence is DJT”——Dennis

  4. I’m shocked. A Democratic Judge appointed by Barack Obama in the Southern District of New York ruled in Baldwins’ favor. No double standard here.

  5. Jonathan: I don’t get it. How does Roice McCullum’s failed tort defamation case against Alec (you spelled his first name wrong) Baldwin help DJT in his criminal cases? You bizarrely claim the Baldwin case provides a “distinctly Trumpian defense”–that DJT “cannot be blamed for how his supporters responded to his inflammatory rhetoric…”. Really? We’ll see how that plays out if DJT’s attorneys, in the Fulton County case, try to offer McCullum v. Baldwin as a defense to the criminal RICO charges. The Judge will be laugh it out of court! You are definitely clutching at straws in this column.

    Speaking of the cases in Fulton County, some of DJT’s co-defendants are presenting themselves for arrest and processing. And they are complaining that DJT is not providing them with legal counsel. Rudy Giuliani still doesn’t have a Georgia attorney to represent him. Despite personal appeals, DJT refuses to provide for his legal defense. Other co-defendants are having the same problem.

    Former DJT attorney and co-defendant Jenna Ellis is complaining DJT will not pay for her lawyer. In a statement she said: “I was reliably informed Trump isn’t funding any of us who are indicted. Would this change if he becomes the nominee? Why then, not now?” The last sentence refers to a statement by DJT that if he is the GOP nominee he will get the party to pay everyone’s legal bills. That is certainly not a given and a lame excuse for not giving his back to those who participated in his illegal scheme.
    In the meantime, DJT is appealing to his MAGA supporters to donate to HIS legal defense fund–leaving rest out to dry. As Ellis further stated: “I totally agree this has become a bigger principle then just one man…so why isn’t MAGA, Inc. funding everyone’s defense?”

    Great Q. The answer is simple. DJT throws everyone under the bus to save his own skin. Jenna Ellis should know thi–and that is why some of DJT’s co-defendants are going to have second thoughts about facing trials all alone without having DJT’s back. Some will plea out and become cooperating witnesses against DJT. Everything Fani Willis expected to happen.

  6. If it is legal for Baldwin to say she is an insurrectionist, I would surmise it is legal for me to say Alec Baldwin is a murderer. Just applying what I believe is the standard I read here.

    1. I always thought it was odd that I should have to qualify my opinion on such matters, based on legal limitations. “I think O.J. is guilty,” I said during the trial. “Aren’t you going to give him the presumption of innocence?” someone asked me. “Why would I have to presume his innocence while eating at Arby’s?”

  7. “Later, a neighbor who was unhappy that Roice attended the demonstration turned her into the authorities.”

    This story sounds like what people do when they live under autocratic governments. Then again, Woodrow Wilson asked children to turn their parents in.

    We have a Constitutional Republic that too many do not understand. We need to better educate people on the right to and how to protest.

    Baldwin demonstrated his ignorance and arrogance once again.

    1. I would guess her unhappy neighbor was probably a recent immigrant from California to Wyoming.

  8. What if you were attending a Planned Parenthood event or an NRA event? You were only interested in a peaceful and constitutionally-legal protest but a handful of the protestors commit violence.

    If your organization has 1 million members, where 99.99% support peaceful protest, legal under the First Amendment but less than 1% of the group commit violence – you can’t stereotype the entire group as constitutionally-subversive.

    There are also “agents provocateurs” involved in some of these cases involving protests. A local police officer or federal officer sometimes masquerades as a member of the group, then the oath-sworn constitutional officer violates his or her oath of office. The undercover cop or federal officer infiltrates the group and commits violence in order to falsely stereotype the mostly peaceful group as constitutionally-subversive. Those officials that violated their oath of office should face criminal penalty as well.

    In this example: Once a group like Planned Parenthood or the NRA is falsely stereotyped as “constitutionally-subversive” government officials can then more easily perform illegal backdoor searches of the other 1 million members. Judges generally look the other way once a group gets falsely-labeled like this.

    In the January 6 case, it’s an even more convoluted mess. The Commander-In-Chief of the USA, loudly and publicly urged his supporters to show up and protest (and fight) providing them with false information – declared false by more than 60 judges.

    The January 6 protestors that actually broke into the U.S. Capitol absolutely broke the law and were constitutionally-subversive but what was their intent after being misled by Trump?

    What about the others that never crossed any barricades and never broke into a government building? Some may have been constitutionally-subversive but many may have simply been exercising peaceful legal First Amendment activity.

  9. A “limited public figure” seems to be a catchall for protecting people from the slanderous and libelous statements that they make. By this judge’s rule the Kid from Covington, Ky would have lost his cases before they even started. Maybe congress and a state legislature should actually pass a law that does not conform to the Sullivan Decision and force the Supreme Court to take action and reverse the precedent. That appears to be what Illinois and New York are trying to do to circumvent the recent 2nd amendment decisions of the Supreme Court. Try to force their hand. Pass the law then someone immediately sue and try to push it to the SCOTUS. Might work, and then again it might not.

    1. The Sullivan in NYT v. Sullivan was at least someone who could exercise authority over the general public. Applying libel law against that could have a chilling effect on criticizing government policy.

      The limited public figure doctrine would have a chilling effect on protests.

  10. There is an important distinction that JT omits, Trump used words with a call to action. I am not sure if Baldwin did

    Trump – ‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’

    Trump – ‘We are going to the Capitol’

    Trump – ‘We’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue — I love Pennsylvania Avenue — and we’re going to the Capitol. And we’re going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they never vote for anything, not even one vote — but we’re going to try to give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help; we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.’

    Trump told the crowd to take action. Those that have been convicted say they did what they did because trump told them to.

    You don’t see trump being responsible for Jan 6, fine, have your opinion. How about hundreds of classified documents in his home? The man is a walking disaster. If you want that for your president, vote for him. You may think he is going to carry a majority of the electoral votes, I have not one bit of worry that will happen. He will loose. But hey, vote for whom you want, even voting for a man that cares not one twit about anyone in the world but himself. Have at it.

      1. Yea, but “Turley conveniently left something out”. Why shouldn’t Bob? Typical leftist behavior.

        1. ““Turley conveniently left something out”. Why shouldn’t Bob? Typical leftist behavior.”

          Who’s the leftist, JT or me?

      2. Upstate – of course he/she left out “peacefully & patriotically” just like the “selected committee” did! Now I understand all their records have vanished.

        1. So if I go into the bank and say peacefully put $10,000 into my bag here. That makes stealing the money OK?

          1. Bob, Stealing is against the law
            Protesting is legal as long as it is peaceful.

            Trump did not pick up a weapon and attack anyone, nor did he ask people to break down barriers and enter the Capitol Building. Ray Epps did that and he is walking free. Your task tonight is to figure out where his links are to Nancy Pelosi. Byrd a Capitol Policeman shot and killed Ashley Babbitt. He was kept from the press after that bad shoot, Why? Rosanne Boyland died in the west tunnel and was seen being hit with a baton by a black female officer who is likely responsible for her death. Why do you know so little about real violence. Did any of these people think about being peaceful?

            1. “Protesting is legal as long as it is peaceful.”

              I agree, Jan 6 at the Capitol wasn’t peaceful. Thank you for proving my point.

              1. Bob, you missed your own point. Trump called for peaceful protest. Peaceful protest is legal.

                I see you haven’t looked past the hyperbole to find out what happened Jan 6, or why the Jan 6 hearings were phony.

                I note no response even after summarizing a few things and showing you where you could find the raw data, emails, testimony, etc. Maybe you missed it. I will repeat it here as an aid for you in finding the truth.

                Bob, here is some information on the Biden Ukraine scandal. Solomon has been following this continuously. All significant items are proved. He provides the needed documentation each time he writes a column. You can go to the site and link to the documentation. That is something you don’t get from the MSM.

                If you want to accuse Trump of bad things, go ahead, I might agree, but provide proof. The MSM is not a source of proof, neither are Fox News or CNN. Hard documents are available for you to look at yourself and decide. That is what you should be dealing with.

                ” Shokin himself even got a letter from the State Department declaring it was “impressed” with his reform efforts.” …

                “A few blocks away from the White House, Hunter Biden and his associates were trying to hire a crisis communications firm to deal with Shokin’s decision to revive a corruption investigation of the Burisma Holdings company where Hunter Biden served as a board member and received $1 million a year in compensation, according to documents reviewed by Just the News.” …

                Make sure you read this section to understand what happened: “Joe Biden’s team makes an abrupt change to U.S. policy” (“By the time Biden got to Kyiv on Dec. 8-9, 2015, he had further altered the plan, deciding to threaten withholding the loan guarantees” “the career officials at State, Justice, and Treasury actually recommended Ukraine receive the $1 billion because Shokin’s office was making adequate progress in reforming the fight against endemic corruption in Ukraine. Even Biden’s own talking points recommended he offer the loan guarantee.”)

                Take note of the links, like the one to Kent’s actual email.


                If you wish, I would like a thoughtful discussion on this article.


    1. Im not here to defend Trump, but your post is the typical hypocritical leftist rant. You would defend the man who called half the country the enemy and a threat to democracy. He has been credibly accused of sexual assault, pedophilic acts with his daughter, coercing his son out of “half his salary”. He is on video creepily sniffing people’s hair, inappropriately touching women and young girls, kissing women on the lips without their consent, and making misogynist and sexist comments over and over again. He is on record making racist comments repeatedly, including about his own running mate. He championed the crime bill that resulted in mass incarceration of black men, and was good friends with KKK robert byrd. He said desegregation would result in “racial jungle”. He was punted out of 2 different presidential elections because of his history of lies and plagiarism. He makes jokes at official visits to disaster areas, lying to grieving people in an effort to relate to them and comparing his poor soul to theirs. He parades his POS son around, including to foreign dignitaries, rubbing our noses in the filth and giving the big middle finger to the 60% that think his family is a bunch of grifters and he was involved. Should i post the video of him pinching the breast of an 8 year old girl??
      Not to mention what his policies have done to this country

      Go ahead and vote for him, kettle.

      1. Tom says…”touching women and young girls, kissing women on the lips without their consent, and making misogynist and sexist comments over and over again. He is on record making racist comments repeatedly”

        Are you talking about trump?

        trump has been convicted of sexual assault in a civil court. Is that not a fact?

        My post said nothing about Biden, NOTHING. For all you know I think he is worse than trump. NOTHING. What is your problem with understanding what people write? Please show in my original post anything related to my saying “…You would defend the man who called half the country…” blah blah blah.

        1. “trump has been convicted of sexual assault in a civil court. Is that not a fact?”

          Trump wasn’t convicted of sexual assault which demonstrates how little you know and how inaccurate you are..

            1. Wrong again. Try a third time. You are demonstrating lack of knowledge and lack of reading comprehension. The only question is, will you be able to admit how wrong you are?

              1. I’m slow. didn’t trump receive a verdict against him in the E Jean Carol case where he has to pay er $5 million?

                Didn’t the jury answer yes to the question…Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll?

                I could be wrong. but hey, I’m just a dump liberal right?

                1. It was for defamation not for what you said, “liable for sexually abusing E Jean Carol”.

                  You keep getting it wrong like you do in almost all your arguments. You need better facts. I provided some regarding Ukraine based not on opinion or spin, but based on the raw data. When hard data is produced you are mum.

                  I want to hear the other side, your side, and I would like to hear that from you. But you have to do so with fact, not fiction and you have to deal with facts you don’t like.

                  Are you able to deal with fact?

        2. Oh so you dont support biden, bob???

          Sorry, i guess i assumed too much when you sounded like a whacked out lefty.

    2. Trump called people to actions that were 100% legal and proper, and sacred American traditions.

      Baldwin, meanwhile, acted with actual malice, because armed only with the knowledge that Roice had attended a 100% lawful and proper protest, he had no basis for supposing that she was either a rioter or an insurrectionist. If someone said they’d attended a BLM protest and I immediately accused them of rioting, let alone insurrection, do you suppose I would not be found liable?!

    3. “Trump – ‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’”

      Bob, that is normal (verbal) action in this country that is founded on the people’s right to protest against government action.

      The statements you are using against Trump can be used against any President starting with George Washington. If that is the only way you can deal with the accusations of criminality against Biden, it means you have lost your perspective and do not have satisfactory information to use in debate.

    4. “voting for a man that cares not one twit about anyone in the world…”

      LOL. I want the president to care about ME… Biden cares about ME… Biden cares about Ukrainians… Biden cares about CORNPOP…

      JFC liberals are lame and destructive – incredible combination.

      Face it, biden cares about his 10% and that’s it. At least DJT cared about the middle class, of course the dems don’t because, aside from idiot teachers, there are few dem middle class to care about, just the rich heirs of the bolsheviks and the people on their plantations

    5. Bob said, “The man is a walking disaster. If you want that for your president, vote for him.”

      Then Bob follows up with, “But hey, vote for whom you want, even voting for a man that cares not one twit about anyone in the world but himself.”

      I thought Bob was talking about Biden.

      Even Obama told Biden when Biden was thinking about running for president, “Joe, you don’t have to do this.” Obama knew what a walking disaster and dimwit Biden is. The Biden crime family. Billions to Ukraine and millions back to Joe. Threaten to withhold billions of taxpayer dollars until Ukraine fires its prosecutor who is on the trail of Burisma, and then Joe gets millions from Burisma for doing it. That is a prime example of a traitor who “cares not one twit about anyone in the world but himself.”

      As Bob said, “The man is a walking disaster. If you want that for your president, vote for him.” Lets Go Brandon!!!

  11. It is remarkable how an absorption with Leftist politics transformed Baldwin from an undeniably talented, personable actor to a loathsome, angry spitter. If you compare him with the career arcs of others in his approximate class, Richard Gere for example, Baldwin came nowhere near fulfilling his potential. He could very well have held and even advocated for the exact same views that he now espouses; all he had to do was be less hateful and ugly about it. Now he begs for parts in lower-tier westerns, and can’t even do that without astonishing controversy. Bullying is his modus operandi. Prevailing in this case is probably one of his few bright spots in several dismal decades.

    1. The part i don’t understand is how the court could find “no malice”. He said “i’m going to post this, good luck.” What does that mean?

      Southern District of New York…yea, that makes sense.

      Am i understanding that this judge prevented this case from being heard by a jury??

      1. “Actual malice” in public figure defamation law doesn’t mean actual malice. It’s a term of art meaning that the defendant knew when he uttered the complained-of words that they weren’t true, or that he showed that he didn’t give a rat’s bottom whether they were true or false.

        In this case I believe Baldwin did show actual malice, even under the legal definition. But the fact that he showed malice under the ordinary definition isn’t relevant.

        1. Isnt there another law that deals with him saying something that is or may be true, but it was done with “ordinary” malice?

    2. Leftist politics ruins every part of every system it touches, from the individual to the family to the community, city, state, nation, and soon the world. Is there a system it hasn’t harmed – public education, health care, the middle class, alec baldwin, environmentalists, disney, sex, ukraine, …

      This is why leftists say conservatives harm them, because another facet of leftyism is that they always project. There is no place that has been run by lefties or person extolling leftyism for any significant period of time that hasn’t become worse.

    3. “Now he begs for parts in lower-tier westerns…” …including the one’s he’s producing! Can you imagine that audition? LOL

    1. but he’s still a disgusting human being.

      That’s the core of free speech. Defending the despicable. If you aren’t doing that, you aren’t a free speech advocate.

Leave a Reply