Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, has been the subject of a shocking level of personal attacks and conspiracy theories. The latest such example involves a site called Project Constitution, which posted an allegation (with a recording of the purported voice of Erika Kirk) that she helped recruit underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. It is untrue, but other posters soon spread the viral claim.
As a public figure, Kirk has a higher burden in bringing defamation claims. There are also free speech protections for the statement of opinions, even unhinged opinions. However, some of these attacks appear to cross the line.
The most recent posting declared that it had acquired a “bombshell” audio file and “verified its authenticity.” It then affirms that “The voice is undeniably Erika Kirk’s. There is no mistaking it. And what she says on that call is absolutely damning.”
The posting maintains that this is a “statement of fact” and “It’s not a rumor. It’s not a theory. This is a HUGE story. This is the confirmation we’ve all been waiting for.”
Yet, these sensational claims were followed by a disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This post is my personal opinion and interpretation of publicly available materials. All claims regarding the identity of voices in the provided audio are based on my own research and belief. This post should be viewed as investigative commentary and not as an absolute statement of fact.
The community note flags the original posting as false, stating, “That’s not Erika Kirk recruiting a young girl. It’s a controlled taped phone call circa 2005 to Haley Robson (a known Epstein recruiter) from Palm Beach PD, the child on the line (known as SG) was attempting to get Robson to incriminate herself.”
As a threshold matter, I commend these companies for the use of community notes. Many of us in the free speech community have long argued that defamation and public corrections can counter false claims and disinformation without the use of the prior censorship system under the Biden Administration.
It is unclear who is responsible for this posting. If you clicked on the link to the Project Constitution, you ended up on a page showing a pig in a police uniform.
I could find no information on who is responsible for the site or the postings. (The site has also linked bizarre conspiracy theories that Kirk is transsexual). The site, however, has also posted pictures of an ailing father and seeks donations.
When I started writing this column, the site was still up. Now you find this announcement:
However, there is still an X site featuring a picture of Charlie Kirk with a pitch for “tips”:
X reports that the verified account was created in 2022.
After various sites disproved the allegations, the creator (again without identifying himself or herself) issued an apology:
“CORRECTION: I would like to issue a correction regarding my previous post where I claimed the audio featured Erika Kirk. Upon further verification, the individual in the recording is actually Haley Robson, as detailed in the Palm Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Here you can find the documents tht [sic] PROVE this: dn790006.ca.archive.org/0/items/Jeffre I apologize for the misinformation and any confusion this may have caused. Accuracy is important, and I am committed to upholding it in future posts. Thank you for your understanding.”
The claim that “Accuracy is important, and I am committed to upholding it in future posts” belies the fact that it is entirely unknown who the “I” is.
Making matters more difficult is the fact that there are other sites called Project Constitution that have no connection to the site attacking Kirk. The difficulty tracking the site or its creators shows the practical challenges in bringing lawsuits. It is possible for sites to spring up and then disappear like hit-and-run defamation cases.
Past courts have allowed litigants to discover the financial and identifying information from carriers or service providers in civil lawsuits.
If a site identifies its content generators, the legal system can address any defamatory content. However, absent such public information, the sites can offer public figures little recourse.
The controversy shows the dilemma for public figures like Kirk.
Kirk’s Case
While the correction can protect publishers under retraction statutes from some damages, there is a credible basis for possible defamation or false light claims. The original disclaimer’s language itself is in sharp contrast to the gotcha claims above it. Moreover, it contains some ambiguity in still claiming that this is the result of investigative journalism. The later apology seeks to resolve that ambiguity.
On the original posting, courts have routinely rejected perfunctory claims of “in my opinion” or disclaimers when the thrust of the publication is clearly factual. For example, in Wilkow v. Forbes, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a “statement of fact is not shielded from an action for defamation by being prefaced with the words ‘in my opinion,’ but if it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts, the statement is not actionable.”
Kirk would have to shoulder the higher “actual malice” standard for public figures established by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, she must show that these sites had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or showed reckless disregard for the truth. At a minimum, the latter standard would appear to be satisfied in this case. There is no evidence that the site took steps to confirm that this voice had previously been identified as Kirk’s, let alone to establish that “The voice is undeniably Erika Kirk’s.”
As for false light, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.
The standard California jury instruction asks the jury if “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether “there is clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”
There is no reason for Erica Kirk to have to tolerate despicable attacks by sites looking for clickbait windfalls. Moreover, it is important for social media companies to require authenticated individuals to be responsible for such postings. Project Constitution can always argue “truth” as a defense, but it should be called to defend this outrageous posting.
Is it time to Change the Public Figure Doctrine?
The Kirk controversy also raises a long-standing question of why public figures should be subject to the higher standard for defamation. I have previously written about the need, in my view, for the Supreme Court to reconsider its prior opinions treating public figures like public officials.
Justice William Brennan wrote an eloquent and profound decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, holding public officials to the higher standard of actual malice.
News outlets were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Through this higher standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.
The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. Later, the Court then extended that actual malice standard to public figures, arguing that they (like public officials) hold powerful positions in our society and choose their lives of high visibility.
Two justices have expressed an interest in revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a long critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.
For over three decades, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation?
Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.
Kirk is a great example of the unfairness of the doctrine. Simply because she has chosen to take up the cause of her slain husband should not mean that she should be required to shoulder a higher burden than other citizens in defending her reputation. The doctrine fosters the view that celebrities are fair game for attacks and that they are not like other people in the protection of their reputations.
It is not clear that Kirk will sue any of the sites spreading this false story, but such a case could offer important legal and practical benefits in the area of defamation law.
“[W]hy should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation?” (JT)
Damn good question.
The bedrock of Western jurisprudence is that a law has a *single*, clear definition that applies equally to all. You are not supposed to get less (or more) legal protection because of your social status.
Sullivan is double-standard law and should be overturned.
The law still talks about the “reasonable reader” as if that person is easy to identify. In 2026 we are surrounded by people who are competent in ordinary life yet will believe almost anything if it flatters their politics or identity, which makes the gap between the legal fiction and cultural reality wider by the day.
Defamation law cannot and should not redefine “reasonable” to mean “whatever a highly online partisan is prepared to swallow,” so courts cling to an objective standard while our culture rewards being unreasonable.
If we are going to keep that standard, then the ask has to be on us: schools, platforms, and citizens themselves need to start treating basic media literacy and fact‑checking as civic duties, not optional hobbies, so that the “reasonable reader” is something more than a line in a jury instruction.
How about Trump v. BBC case.
https://courthousenews.com/bbc-fights-trumps-latest-defamation-claims/
I do not like the Public Figure escape that the Supreme Court has created. To use their own terms, it’s vague and seems to be quite non discriminating when it is applied. The public figure should have the same rights as anyone else. Just because you are a public figure does not mean that you are rich and can mount an expensive defense to some of these Willy Nilly and scandalous attacks. Just as I don’t believe the “rich and famous” and other public figures should get special privileges, I also don’t think they should have to deal with scandalous and libelous attacks any more than anyone else.
Equal before the law, right?
Maybe that would reduce the volume of the screaming that all sides engage in if they had more accountability for what they say. This should be a civil matter with no involvement by the government. This is not Germany, the UK or the European Union.
For what it worth: The rich are usually not the ones mounting a defense, rather they are more likely the ones initiating defamation suits. Source law.stackexchange.com.
SLAPP anyone?
Wealthy individuals are far more likely to initiate defamation lawsuits than poor individuals, primarily due to the high costs and risks involved in litigation.
Wealth enables access to legal resources: Defamation cases are expensive and complex, requiring skilled attorneys, expert witnesses, and extensive discovery. Most poor individuals cannot afford these costs, making it nearly impossible to pursue a claim without contingency-fee lawyers—many of whom avoid defamation cases due to low recovery potential.
Defamation is often a “rich person’s tort”: As noted by legal professionals, defamation claims are typically pursued by those with significant assets or reputations to protect. High-profile cases (e.g., Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard, Alex Jones vs. Sandy Hook families) involve wealthy or public figures, where damages can be substantial.
Wealthy plaintiffs can use lawsuits strategically: Some rich individuals file defamation suits not just to win damages, but to intimidate, silence critics, or burden opponents with legal fees. These are often classified as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)—frivolous or vexatious suits used to drain the resources of the defendant.
Legal systems often favor the financially powerful: In civil litigation, the ability to pay for prolonged legal battles gives wealthier parties a significant advantage. Poor defendants may be forced to settle or drop their case simply due to mounting legal costs, even if they have a valid defense.
Counter-suits and legal harassment: Wealthy individuals can also use the legal system offensively—filing counterclaims, motions, or cost demands that overwhelm a less-resourced opponent, effectively deterring them from continuing legal action.
In short, while anyone can technically file a defamation suit, the financial and procedural barriers mean that rich people are far more likely to initiate such cases, and often use them as tools of power and leverage.
The scales of justice often simply weigh the amount of money each party has.
Kirk is using Charlie’s martyrdom as a weapon expecting his minions to overwhelm her critics with public attacks.
Anonymous, MS Kirk isn’t “using Charlie’s martyrdom as a weapon”, her enemies, people lie Candace Owens, are using her position as a way to garner clicks, fame and money. Why blame a woman who took over her dead husband’s platform for what lying bad people are saying about her? I don’t understand your perspective.
Now how in the entire world could you possibly know what Kirk thinks? You a psychic?
HullBobby,
Good point.
The Project Constitution web page that has now gone offline. I was wondering if it was to try to defame Ms. Kirk, click bait or to solicit funds for a allegedly sick father. Perhaps all three.
The sad part is there are people out there who will believe this kind of stuff.
I have a friend who got duped by that really bad AI picture of Pertti getting shot, the one with the one ICE agent missing his head. But people want to believe it so badly they will suspend their own intelligence. That same picture was presented on the floor by a Congress man as evidence of . . . something. When confronted about the missing ICE agents head and that it was a bad AI fake, the staff responded that the picture was slightly edited.
What does the UK, GY or EU have to do with Kirk? The issue is local. Not intl.
In fact those GY and UK have a long history pertaining to defamation law. Its just didn’t appear overnight. In GY’s case it goes back to 1871. In UK’s 1843. So the case for gov. intervention is historical not political.
Gratuitous “my opinion only” boilerplate language should not be seen as a cleansing of intended defamation.
Seen as a …” Why please? Its legal, its ethical. Its expedient. Costs little to nothing.
Sullivan was wrongly decided even as to public officials, let alone public figures. I don’t believe Brennan was motivated by anything but his personal distaste for Sullivan. I don’t believe he would have made the same ruling had the plaintiff been MLK or some other civil rights leader.
News outlets were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches.
First of all, I think you meant to write “pro-segregation”. Assuming this is so…
Oh, really? How did these pro-segregation figures force the news outlets to lie about them?
The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship.
You mean by taking care to report the truth? That kind of self-censorship? That’s all they would have had to do, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have been expected to do it, just as they must when making statements about private figures. What is wrong with that sort of “self-censorship”? Had the NYT taken the trouble to investigate the scurrilous allegation against Sullivan before publishing it, there would have been no case.
Did you argue this in front of Brennan?
“Had the NYT taken the trouble to investigate the scurrilous allegation against Sullivan before publishing it, there would have been no case.” It is not known exactly what the NYT’s discussions and actions by mgmt.) ca 1963. It may well be that they sought a fight. American newspapers of that and the preceding era had a lot of power and money to influence public opinion. And, their honor was at stake. Just a thought.
As a threshold matter, I commend Elon Musk for the creation of community notes.
Elon Saved our public discourse from communist control.
Wouldn’t it be great to see some of the people here sue or get sued for their defamatory comments. Expose them for all the world to see. See them up close and personal, reveal their innate ugliness and hate. See the true face of MAGA and its child-soldiers who swarm over this blog like insects.
So do you also come here for the spot-on stellar commentary from Prof Turley on political malfeasance manifested by the leftards and then to rag on said leftards for said malfeasance? I do.
Wa? Is that you gdonallen?
You mean like the jellyfish?
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/18/erika-kirk-and-the-perils-of-being-a-public-figure/#comment-2618468
Would it not be great to see what the jellyfish was like in real life? The true face of the jellyfish and it’s child like insults?
You’re the drunken pig farmer right?
Ah, the smell of pure, unbridled hatred in the morning!
Love the smell of hate in the morning…. gets the blood flowing.
Let’s see what stupidities you come up with today. Lock and load wally.
Our resident f3$t3r1ng f&ck$t1ck got up early this morning. Are you sleep deprived because your @$$ d1ld0 failed last night?
Name a MAGA person who spouts lies the way that Candace Owens does, Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Mamdani with Jews, many lefties with Jews and Israel. It is the ugly left and the oddball anti-Trump right that state these lies. Does Fox lie when compared to MSNOW and CNN, or even CBS, NBC and ABC?
Interesting opinion today Prof Turley. This is of note: “but such a case could offer important legal and practical benefits in the area of defamation law.” At what cost… emotional, financial etc..
E. Kirk would have been about about 10 years old at the time Epstein became renown, ca. 2000. How could she have recruited for him?
The same way that Ted Cruz could be the Zodiac Killer two years before he was born.
But Epstein was busted in 2005, when Mrs Kirk was 17.
Ah ah, so she did do it! proof positive. You are a super sleuth dude.
Wait. You’re saying Ted Cruz is not the Zodiac Killer?
The attacks on Erica, like Charlie, amount to a case of baby-snatching. The Kirks are snatching away their youth, gen Z, et al from the clutches of “total government”. This is the Left.
Similar attacks on or disregard for are the nuclear family, single unit housing, private schools, and even God. Those attacking Erika with AI fakes, websites with misinformation, and flat out lies want the government to be supreme in everyone’s life. The same people attack Trump for promoting traditional American values, the worst offences of which are individualism, religion, and family.
The Left can win. Three countries with the greatest intellectual heritage of all, England, Germany, and France, have thrown it away, focusing now on policing trivialities.
Sure don, whatever you say.
Please take your meds.
Don’t forget yours either Ano. (Please take your meds)
Now can you debate what Gdonaldallen posted?
Or child-like insults is all you have.
Child like? That’s funny coming form the likes of you, you the blog idiot.
Debate what? Like you, he’s incomprehensible.
BTW, check your spelling and grammar.
So you have no answer. Figures.
Yes you post child like answers. If he was wrong, show us how.
Instead of insults.
Ahh! The jellyfish arrives!!
Ah the oink oink fool has finally arrived. Guessing he’s drunk again, as usual.
Hey oink oink, telll us about your educational background pig man?
” BTW, check your spelling and grammar.”
Grammar Nazi is back boys! get em!
“Vee hav vays uf making you spell correctly”
Hey Dustoff, why don’t you debate Gdonaldallen?
For what reason?
Gotta love dustoff, he’s so f-ing stupid he expects an anon to “debate” the crazy gdonallen, but has no clue what there is to debate.
BTW folks, dustoff claims to have two “collage” degrees. Impressive eh?
Every time I think that your comments could not possibly get any stupider or more inane, you significantly “exceed” my expectations.
Congrats dude! Every time I think that your comments could not possibly get any stupider or more inane, you significantly “exceed” my expectations.
Did you ever master the use of “by,” “buy,” or “bye?”
How about “you,” “your,” or “you’re?”
You’re the trannie involved in the Seattle Olympic Spa controversy right? Katie daviscourt mentioned you.
That’s a great point about England, France and Germany throwing away their intellectual heritage. Just yesterday Trump highlighted something I have been saying for some time now and that is that Great Britain has gone from Winston Churchill, the greatest person of the 20th century, to Keir Starmer, a Muslim appeasing weak-kneed little fascist that apparently worries more about the Islamic vote than little girls getting raped by invaders.