Just months after a judge dismissed Nina Jankowicz’s much-hyped defamation lawsuit against Fox, a federal district court judge in Delaware, Judge Jennifer L. Hall, has dismissed Ray Epps’s defamation lawsuit. The Jan. 6 rioter said the network falsely identified him as an FBI informant.
U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Hall granted Fox News’ motion to dismiss the suit.
In the original complaint, Epps made a defamation per se claim and a false light claim.
Epps and his wife have clearly been through a nightmare of threats and innuendo. However, this public controversy was discussed by various networks and the Jan. 6th Committee. It was also a matter of legitimate public debate and commentary, with people on both sides expressing their views on the evidence and underlying allegations.
The problem for the court was trying to draw a line when coverage and commentary becomes defamation on such subjects. The chilling effect on free speech can be immense. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. The status imposes the higher standard first imposed in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, requiring a showing of “actual malice” where media had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard whether it was true or false.
Now based in Utah, Epps alleged his life was upended after former Fox host Tucker Carlson repeatedly described him as a federal agent who helped instigate the attack on the Capitol, which was an attempt to stop the certification of the election of Joe Biden.
The breathing space cuts both ways. In reporting on the dismissal of the Epps lawsuit, it is notable that the Associated Press is still referring to Jan. 6 as an “insurrection” rather than a riot. Curiously, when you hit the link on “insurrection,” it goes to an article on the dropping of the Smith case, which notably did not charge Trump or anyone else with insurrection or even incitement. Yet, the AP is still reporting “the insurrection” as a fact.
The dismissal of Jankowicz directly addressed the dangers of using the courts to try to silence your critics. The case backfired on Jankowicz in prompting a court to expressly state that what she has been advocating is censorship. After holding that people are allowed to criticize Jankowicz as protected opinion, the court added:
“I agree that Jankowicz has not pleaded facts from which it could plausibly be inferred that the challenged statements regarding intended censorship by Jankowicz are not substantially true. On the contrary … censorship is commonly understood to encompass efforts to scrutinize and examine speech in order to suppress certain communications.
“The Disinformation Governance Board was formed precisely to examine citizens’ speech and, in coordination with the private sector, identify ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’ … that objective is fairly characterized as a form of censorship.”
Jankowicz previously solicited significant contributions on the promise of this ill-conceived lawsuit. Nevertheless, Jankowicz is still being touted as a hero and enlisted to explain how to combat “disinformation.”
The calls for greater censorship are likely to only increase after the election. However, we have seen figures like Hillary Clinton call on Europeans to force the censorship of Americans.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I know I’m repeating everything that’s been said a zillion times since J6.. but.. one more for the road…….. The Fact that Epps was caught on videoS not just on J6, but the day before, soliciting folks to rush the Capitol, enter the Capitol, etc… and The Fact that the J6 Cmte Never Ever called him for a friendly interview speaks VOLUMES re: The Status as an Inside Instigator…..
Someone should write a book. I may be titled ‘The Legacy of Joseph R. Biden.’ It may be an instant best seller……
Tom: instead read: “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. It’s more relevant now.
Shaved your head yet?
I’ll wait for the revised edition, “Everything Trump Touches Dies But Then Comes Back to Life.”
By the way, Rick Wilson is a degenerate pinhead.
Ray Epps is a scumbag of the lowest order. Someone who is a public figure like Epps that has admitted that he helped create the riot at the Capital January 6th. An agent provocateur for sure but for who? We may never know but clearly, he aligned himself with those opposed to Trump. I rant and rave about the political assassination of Trump on my weekly podcast, “The Trump Assassination Files” streaming LIVE Tuesday night 8 PM on Rumble and Revolution.radio. Epps is a minor player in the Deep State attacks on Trump. Few remember January 6th, 2017, when Comey failed to blackmail Trump at a dinner meeting just one day after Traitor 44 and his minions held a strategy meeting on how to stop the newly elected president.
That Epps was never prosecuted for inciting to riot establishes that “the who” behind his antics is indeed powerful and, to date, untraceable. And therein lies the real outrage, that enigmatic agents of our own government deployed untouchable scoundrels for the express purpose of fostering the pandemonium required to entrap the otherwise law-abiding. With a government gone rogue, who among us can feel safe? Epps get no pity from me, no matter what befalls him.
So, is Ray Epps a “public person”? Who decides this vague designation never defined anywhere in any lawbook? And how is Ray’s right to protect his public reputation less secured than yours or mine? How did the 1968 Supreme Court get away with creating 2 classes of citizens with differing reputational rights, which seems a clear violation of “equal protection under the law and due process.
If reputational rights are to be eclipsed for persons who participate in the public sphere, then shouldn’t we expect fewer to participate? Isn’t that exactly what we’re seeing?
Sullivan should be overturned. The wholesale invention of “public persons” by robed elites — with no basis in law — with judges, not juries, deciding who is such a person — smacks of the elitism we have allowed to fester and grow without sufficient pushback.
And the idea that what the media did to Ray Epps and his family was somehow “good for the country”?????…that a “free press” can choose to destroy a good citizen’s life using unsubstatiated smears….that reeks of moral confusion…..of abandoning a traditional sense of right and wrong, and the taking up of zealous ideology.
If some media producer/editor decides to turn against you with falsehoods, do you want to give up your right to fight back using the legal torts system? Only a fool would extend character assassination “rights” to more powerful others.
You may first wish to consider the internal logic of “how is Ray’s right to protect his public reputation less secured than yours or mine.” And more generally the concept of the so-called right to any particular “reputation”. The “reputation” of person A is nothing more than the opinions persons B – Z hold of person A. What “right” does person A have to “affect” the opinions anyone has about him or her? They can’t have any right to those varying opinions, much less a right to forbid them, in any conceivably realistic world that appreciates freedom of thought.
The proper and only question the erroneous body of so-called “reputational law” or “defamation law” should answer is whether or not the publicly expressed opinions of any member of B – Z are factual. If they are not factual then one MIGHT conceivably apply a standard of fraud. But that would never be a fraud against person A. It could only conceivably be a fraud against any other person in B – Z who contracted with the opinion-expresser for a true set of facts about person A.
Ray Epps thrust himself into the public eye by publicly and loudly telling people to go into the capitol (which I though was the worst thing that anyone ever ever could do). It is a little different than plucking some obscure citizen and going after them.
Prof. Turley – I can not find one iota of difference between the Epps defamation case and the one against Truely or the one by DVS against Fox.
To the extent there are differences – they favor Epps
First – DVS and the Atlanta Election workers were government actors. Frankly the GA case against Gulliani strongly resembles New York Times vs. Sullivan where a number of GA officials claimed they were defamed by Martin Luther King and associated black preachers. Further in NYT vs. Sullivan atleast some of the allegations regarding some of those officials were FALSE.
The GA election workers were government employees. The govenrment can not protect itself from publive scrutiny of its actions particularly elections by hiding behind defamation claims by government employees.
Nor can they hide behind defamation claims by Government contractors participating in elections.
Put simply Free speech and trust in government REQUIRE the ability of people to criticize – even falsely – government. government actors, and government contractors Especially with respect to elections.
Next – as with the Epps claim we do not KNOW that the claims regarding the election workers in GA are false.
We do not know that the claims regarding DVS are false, and even more importantly no one could possibly know at the time those claims were made.
The same is true regarding Epps. I do not know if Epps is a federal agent or informant.
I do know that he is know of the most agressive actors on J6 and that he has not been prosecuted despite having acted worse than the so called proud boys or oath keepers seditionists – yet epps has not been indicted or prosecuted – I beleive he very recently faced a minor charge.
correction not the one against Turley – the one against Guliani
Under the new Justice Dept – 1/20/25 – when they set up a commission/Special Prosecutor for J^ committee they need to relook at Ray Epps and his true roll, if they can. As well as all the so-called witnesses befre the J6th committee.
There are Ray Epps mini-me’s everywhere. You probably live next door to one of them.
The Russians call them ‘Comrades’, we call them ‘Good-Buddy-Epps’
What-a-Pal
It’s good to see that so many are not buying the lies regarding the riot at the Capital on Jan. 6 2020. The truth is, there were many different factions present in the large group that gathered at the capital on that day and this causes a cloud to descend upon the event making it hard to know the entire truth.
The use of flash bangs and tear gas, by the Capital Police, against a large crowed did not help in keeping matters calm. I believe this was one of the main reasons why the crowd grew more hostile. It is to bad that adequate forces were not present at the Capital to contain the issue and from those who gained entry, some I’m sure had other ideas of what they would like to see take place, which really did not help matters in general.
On the other hand, either did the Capital Police unconstitutional reaction to the crowd and the allowing of many attendees by Capital Police invitation to enter the Capital, this did not set the proper response to such an event.
The bottom dollar is! Yes, it is obvious that because of Covid, the election of 2020 was not on the up and up, because of looser voter regulation laws. This based on the the 2024 election which was much lower in total votes cast, about 5-6 million fewer votes, which is a good indicator that with the turnout being pretty high because of the division in our country and the two obvious paths that were laid out before the voters in 2024. That the total votes for 2024 should have been closer to those in 2020, that were cast, with an additional total of 2 to 3 million more, in 2024, due to population and normal voter registration advancement. Thank GOD commonsense prevailed, but it was still a close margin when it came to the popular vote, only 2.5 to 2.6 million between the two candidates.
In closing, other events like the pipe bombs placed at the DNC and RNC and the number of undercover agents that day in the crowd, are still not completely known regarding the facts as they should be by now. The really point regarding this matter is that the Government lies to keep us misinformed and in suspense. It really makes one think about what else they are keeping from us for our so called best interest or theirs?
Disclosure will eventually come, It is only a matter of time!
.
I am so confused. JT says “…which was an attempt to stop the certification of the election of Joe Biden.”
That is the definition of insurrection. They tried to keep trump in office after loosing the election.
JT admits that is why they were at the capitol, gives the definition of an insurrection for why they did what they did, then says it was not an insurrection.
Why am I not surprised that JT will lie through his teeth just like trump?
You make the exact same comment every day.
In addition, JT refers to it as . . . “the attack on the Capitol”.
That is the definition of insurrection.”
No it is not. That claim is absolute absurd.
People in Portland protested violently at a federal courthouse against ICE in the summer of 2020 – was that an insurection ?
People protested violently at the WH with respect to BLM – was that an insurrection ?
In 2016 Pink Pussy hatted Clinton supporters tried to stop Trump’s inauguration – was that an insurrection ?
Protestors tried to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation – was that an insurrection ?
Se. Casey went to court to everyturn the PA senate election – was that an insurrection ?
There are many many many problems with the claim that J6 was an insurrection.
The first is that Congress had the power to legitimately certify Trump as the president on J6. Read the constitution.
They are HIGHLY unlikely to do so – though they have on more than one occaision in the past.
You can not be accused of overthrowing the government for attempting to get the government to do something it has the power to do.
I would note that some democratic congressmen have objected to the certification of some states in every election that a republican has won in my lifetime.
No one would accuse them of insurrection. No one would accuse those who encouraged them to do so of insurrection.
You would have a far better case if 10,000 Trump supporters showed up with AR-15’s on J6 – and even then you would fall short.
Threatening congressmen if they did not certify Trump as president would absolutely be a crime – but it would not be insurrection.
We get these types of problems from you left wing nuts ALL the time.
The law MUST be read NARROWLY regarding govenrment powers and BROADLY reqarding individuals rights.
The overwhelming majority of people on J6 acted lawfully – even charges of tresspassing are bogus. Congress can not use a claim of an emergency to thwart citizens first amendment rights.
To protest, to speak to assemble and to petition government. Congress was free to shutdown if it was not safe to conduct its business. it is not ever free to use a weak claim of emergency to thwart people from voicing their displeasure or support for actions by congress.
Regardless Bide as not president until he swore the oath of office on J20, 2021.
The absurd claim of inssurection is that because some citizens demanded that Congress do something that was in the power of congress to do for reasons that you do not like – that is an insurrection.
Who were they trying to take over from ? Trump was president on J6. Further Trump would CEASE to be president on J20, 2021 – absent Congress certifying that Trump rather than Biden won the election.
J6 protestors could have “hanged Mike Pence” – though only idiots think they were serious about that, That would have been a crime, it would not have been insurrection.
They could have shot members of congress – that would not have been an insurrection.
The south secceeded from the Union after Lincoln won the election. There were actually plots to kill him as he traveled to DC.
The insurection started when confederate forces engaged in ARmed conflict to take over federal fort sumter.
People in Portland protested violently at a federal courthouse against ICE in the summer of 2020 – was that an insurection ?
Yes, it was. None of the others were.
The first is that Congress had the power to legitimately certify Trump as the president on J6. Read the constitution.
No, it didn’t. You read the constitution; there is not one word there giving Congress such a power. Eastman is probably correct that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional, but he’s incorrect in asserting that the VP has such a power. As anyone can easily verify by reading the constitution, no one has that power. It doesn’t say who shall count the votes, and it doesn’t say what should happen if there’s a disagreement about any of the votes’ validity. The Electoral Count Act was simply Congress asserting its own view, without any basis in the constitution. Any alternative version would be equally unconstitutional. The only way to fix it is by an amendment.
Article I, Section 5: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,”.
They continue to say the rally goers wanted to ‘overturn’ the election. They wanted a postponement of 10 days to examine the evidence.
Then why weren’t they charged with insurrection
Epps is as guilty as these criminals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhyIf6Nyfqs
@:32
Whimsicalmama posted: Let’s get some real data put out there about real criminals.
Am I asking you a rhetorical question: what about the real criminals Trump and Congressional Republicans have known all about for well over six years now?
The two Obama Attorney Generals, two Obama FBI Directors and Special Counsel Robert Mueller who under oath repeatedly perjured themselves to FISA judges while before their courts, using the fraudulent and illegal Trump-Russia Dossier to be the basis of obtaining counterespionage spy warrants to deprive Trump and others of their civil rights under color of law.
The 39 FBI officials (names redacted) in their head office involved in the Obama/Comey ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation of supposed Trump-Russia “collusion”, detailed in the Inspector General’s report where he found they accepted bribes from the news media to “leak” information about their investigation. The IG did carefully choose to refer to those bribes as “gratuities” – but a pair of tickets at the red line at an NHL hockey game ain’t quite the same as a free cup of coffee. No different than the IG describing interviews under oath when McCabe and others perjured themselves to him “lacked candor”.
Hillary Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr, and the others within the FBI and DoJ that the Inspector General recommended for prosecution. We know their names; he listed over a dozen he recommended for prosecution. Have known them for years.
None of them were prosecuted during Trump’s first term in office, nor even a Special Counsel appointed to investigate the IG’s findings on the way to indictments and prosecutions.
When Trump and Republicans have years of knowing who the real criminals are, mountains of already collected evidence sitting in front of them, and do nothing about it, I have little in the way of faint hopes that will change now.
Trump is the only one convicted of felonies.
Donald Trump stood a better chance of being acquitted by the cast of The View than he did from that kangaroo court in New York City.
No one, on either side, cares about that so-called “conviction”, because everyone knows it doesn’t mean anything. Even you don’t believe it represents anything in the real world.
Old Airborne Dog… Trump admitted he just chucked all of that to focus on being a Good President.. notably put Hillary et al aside.. but.. he said not this time… it caught him off guard that they came out with tankers full of Filthy Dirty tricks after he left office even though he basically ignored them while in Office.. this time will be different.. he’s pull up the Deep State by the roots……….