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.’”