A new ad running to support Democrat senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan has been widely denounced as anti-Semitic for suggesting that Jews are taking food from Americans. The ad is the work of Rebellion PAC, a political action committee co-founded by The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur. Uygur has now struck out at CNN over a panel discussion that trashed the segment and called it clearly defamatory. For a torts teacher, the claim popped this story to the top of my pile, and I thought it was worthy of addressing. The CNN segment is manifestly not defamatory. Whatever grievance that he may have with the network, it is not a legal one.
The ad shows a couple shopping for food when the husband grabs a dozen eggs.
Wife: “Honey, you’re going to have to put those eggs back.”
Husband: “They don’t like eggs anymore?”
Wife: “No, they like eggs. But we have to set that $7 aside for killing Palestinians.”
Husband: “What? Don’t we give Israel $4 billion a year anyway?”
Wife: “Yeah, and now we’re giving them another $26 billion. It’s like $161 per person. Apparently it’s costing us a lot of money to drop bombs on Gaza.”
Husband: “It’s terrible.”
Wife: “Yeah.”
Husband: “Don’t they get universal healthcare too?”
Wife: “Yeah, they do. We’re paying for that too, probably. Might as well put the bananas back.”
The 90-second advertisement ends with “Mike Rogers is for they/them. Abdul El-Sayed is for you.”
After host Michael Smerconish presented the ad, the CNN panel expressed revulsion to the ad as hateful and anti-Semitic, including using anti-Semitic tropes to enrage viewers.
Uygur defended the ad, solicited donations to keep the ad running in Michigan, and declared the segment defamatory.
The panelists do not appear to mention Uygur by name but the ad credit does refer to him. Ultimately, that is not critical anyway since you can have defamation per quod where the content is still defamatory in combination with reference to extrinsic information or evidence.
An actionable defamation case requires a false statement as to some fact that is published to a third party that causes reputational or other cognizable form of damage. This must be proven pursuant to the relevant standard of proof, discussed below.
As a threshold issue, Uygur is a public figure who must meet a higher standard for any defamation lawsuit. He has long been an influencer and commentator on national stories. In addition to being the host of the popular Young Turks program and a MSNBC regular, he is the uncle of Hasan Piker.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court 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. In order to prevail, Uygur must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
However, the greatest problem for Uygur is that the panelists are expressing their own opinions on the value and the content of the ad. It is protected speech and an exception to defamation. Declaring that the ad is anti-Semitic is not a “fact” assertion that would qualify as the foundation for a libel action.
The Supreme Court has rejected the claim that there is a categorical defense for anything claimed to be defamation. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). However, opinion is protected speech and routinely protected by the courts from defamation liability.
The CNN segment is armor-plated, unassailable opinon, in my view.
Ironically, it is Uygur who has been criticized for misrepresenting the factual context for the ad.
Critics have objected that the $26 billion figure actually comes from a 2024 emergency spending package and not, as suggested, a new amount. That makes sense because the ad was recycled from Uygar’s 2024 presidential campaign.
The 2024 legislation included over $9 billion in humanitarian assistance, including relief for Palestinian civilians in Gaza and other populations. There was also roughly $7 billion set aside for American military operations in the Middle East the replenishment of American military stockpiles. There were payments of $3.5 billion in foreign military financing for Israel and $5.2 billion for missile defense systems.
The good news for Uygar is that the ad itself is also political speech and opinion. Moreover, while some countries or groups have filed for group libel, they are routinely rejected. That includes dubious libel lawsuits by Israel.
Whatever viable lawsuits come out of the Michigan election, the Uygur defamation action will not be one of them.
Uyger’s last escapade was to recruit three randos to make posthumous accusations against Lindsey Graham. There’s a reason they call ’em ‘mediaswine’.
Familiarity confers legitimacy. Ten years ago, the DSA would have been a sideshow of abstruse but ridiculous political opinion. Hasan Piker and Abdul El-Sayed would have been a sideshow of a sideshow. But now, here they are, front-page stuff. Cenk Uygur would be known only inside a few outside fringe groups.
Mr. Turley, Cenk Uygur is Hasan Piker’s uncle.
If Michigan wants reputational damage, keep electing and appointing Jew-haters, as well as radicals from the extreme Left. Henry Ford is rolling in his grave
Henry Ford is smiling in his grave.
$7 eggs? Must be a grocery store in NYC or LA.
Abdul El-Sayed is trying to distance himself from that vile, anti-Semitic ad. And yet he made exactly the same argument: The U.S. should withdraw all aid to Israel, because it is committing “genocide.”
How is that anti-Semitic? The ad was factual. Plus it was also political speech.
Prove it.
“How is that anti-Semitic? The ad was factual. Plus it was also political speech.”to
Factual? With respect the amount of funding, perhaps. Opinionated, with respect to the purpose of same and intended to be anti-Israel, for sure. The speaker is clearly THAT in the context of the statement. As the issues have evolved to present, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are a suit worn of cloth cut from the same bolt having been woven into the same fabric. What is not clear are the ‘they’ who are receiving receiving universal health care that ‘we’ are paying for. Is the inference being made that theS taxpayer is providing funding for universal health care for the Israeli Jews, a benefit that the American citizen is not receiving? Is this covert suggestion? That remains open for discussion.
“…..because it is committing “genocide.”
Nothing more than the usual and customary manifestations of the soft bigotry of low expectations for the intelligence of the low information voter.
Such fragile snowflakes and cowards, bigots and bullies are, and Uygur is a bigot and a bully, right along with all of his pals. He wants to punish people with law for not liking him enough, so let’s add self-esteem of a flea to the list. Grow a pair, Cenk.
He wants to punish people with law for not liking him enough = Donald J. Trump.
Let’s put things in perspective. They built the Dome Of The Rock on top of Solomon’s Temple (built 1,500 years before Muhammad was born), and claim that Israel is occupying their land. (LOL)
Now connect that to today’s article about defamation. Good luck!
“Now connect that to today’s article about defamation. Good luck!”
It’s all connected to the various contenders having brought the ages old geopolitical and religious conflicts of the Levant into the current election cycle. Uygur considers himself ill-used being criticized for having done so. How and why he deems his character has having been defamed is open to argument. IMHO, finding himself in line with his nephew pretty much defines the content of his character. Others are free to disagree. The Intifada is alive and well in the United States and the supporters of same are his useful tools.
“Let’s put things in perspective”
Such was the practice during the westward movement of Islam into the Levant, northern African and Southern Europe, beginning in the 7th Century and ending in the 15th. Build their houses of worship on the bones of the cultures they sought to subsume. They colonized and occupied. The pot calling the kettle black. [Now we await the usual and customary rebuttal from ‘IT”.]
Now connect that to today’s article about defamation. Good luck!
We’re over $40 trillion in debt, and we’re arguing about $26 billion in foreign assistance instead of asking some much bigger questions.
I belong to a charitable organization whose charitable activities can be evaluated by Charity Navigator. Donors can examine its financial accountability, administrative costs, and effectiveness. If they don’t like what they find, they can stop contributing.
Now consider the federal government. We fund foreign and domestic assistance programs through compulsory taxation. We don’t have the option of withholding our contributions when we disagree with how the money is spent.
Shouldn’t that demand even greater accountability?
Why was the money appropriated? Where did it go? How much was consumed by administration? What measurable goals were established, and were they achieved? Are we helping people and nations become more independent, or simply perpetuating dependency?
Congress holds the power of the purse. Its responsibility doesn’t end when it appropriates the money. We have the GAO, inspectors general, and congressional oversight committees, yet we continue funding programs without consistently demonstrating their effectiveness.
I’m not arguing against charitable assistance, foreign or domestic. I’m asking whether we’re getting what we’re paying for, whether the spending is justified, and who’s accountable when it isn’t.
A charity has to earn its donors’ confidence. Shouldn’t a government that can compel its citizens to pay be held to at least that standard?
Earth to Olly, earth to Olly… the article is about a TV ad Olly. Not about you.
Earth to whoever you are. The article is about a political ad concerning government spending. I took that issue a little further and asked why we’re spending the money, what we’re getting for it, and who’s accountable.
You apparently couldn’t follow that far.
And while you’re busy reminding me what the article is about, you’ve managed to make your entire response about me. Apparently your own advice doesn’t apply to you.
You’re actually a pretty useful example of how people get distracted by the little things while the bigger issues go unexamined.
But thanks for demonstrating my point. I couldn’t have done it better myself.
You’re welcome! Ah ha! A big picture guy eh, everyone else is small and stupid, especially your buddy upstatefarmer? Where is he BTW? He’s late.
But Amazing how you think your dementia derived gobbledygook is applicable to the article. To repeat, its article is about defamation, not you. Always willing to help old folks with dementia.
PSYCHO ANON
OLLY,
Well, the annony goes to show just how current public education and higher education have failed to form a self-governing, intelligent and critical thinking citizen. Also annony proves to us what a failure to launch he really is.
How marvelous!
When is the last time Congress went through the deliberative appropriation process? Isn’t the new process to pass budgets by waiting until the debt limit is about to be breached, then just pass another continuing resolution?
That’s a great question, and one that deserves to be discussed.
I think the last time Congress completed the regular appropriations process on schedule was back in 1997, and 1995 was the last time it passed all the bills individually.
Thirty years later, with over $40 trillion in debt, you’d think we’d have gotten around to asking whether this is any way to run a government.
From defamation to deficits. Quite the leap you two. You guys know anything thing about tort/defamation law?
Another wacko Anon!
Oh! Annony is big mad the adults are having a conversation and ignoring him.
How marvelous!
Too bad political ads can’t just tell the truth instead of try to frighten; the truth is scary enough!
‘Truth? What then would be the point? Politics is war with another name. Research the history of political ads in America since the 1800’s. No different from today.
“The Truth” for one person is another’s lie.
Wow, the truth is not defamation. But defending your innocence of a false claim with no evidence in New York City is still defamation.
And costly. Be interesting to see who pays for the lawsuit. Ford Foundation or N. R. Singham?
You can’t criticize (((them))), get with program goyim and suffer some more.
Its not like MAGA not suing… think about Trump, he’s sued everybody. And gotten a few wacks himself.
Hey look, Hassan Piker has entered the chat.
Imagine saying you “can’t criticize (((them)))” while referring to Jews, the most maligned, attacked, protested, shunned and lied about group in the last 75 years.
What people are saying (and doing) to Jews today is worse than what people said about Germans in the midst of WWII. There has never been such open bigotry against a group of people in my long lifetime.
“Hey look, Hassan Piker has entered the chat.”
Piker is Uygur’s nephew. Piker’s mother is Uygur’s sister. The two men are reported as very much aligned these ‘daze’.
More grift. They Somolian? Wouldn’t surprise anyone eh?
Shut up goy, be a good cattle, your tax money needs to fund a genocide. Oy vey!
Imagine this bigotry happening even five years ago? Anonymous is a product of teacher’s unions, bad parenting, and a lack of ambition. Hey glue eater, get a job you lazy sack of garbage.
HullBobby,
Right on about being the product of some failed public schooling and parenting. This annony is what a failure to launch looks like.
No it is not, but considering that your kind keeps screaming here all day, every day, death to Muslims, and you wonder why?
Funny how leftwing Fascists complain endlessly about military support for Israel, because it’s too costly, but gladly shovel money hand-over-fist to Ukraine.
…and Haiti…and Egypt…and the Palestinian authority…and Congo…and ____…..and _____….
and blue states and cities etc…
illegal alien welfare programs etc… oh, and legal services …
and fomented communist revolutions with USAID money before USAID got shut down.
After USAID Cuts, The Left Lost Seven Finished Presidential Races In Latin America – A Closer Look
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/usaid-cuts-left-lost-seven-150052577.html
Of course Brazil kept their commie government by cheating. Communist seldom of easily.