It suddenly struck me: Donald J. Trump and J.D. Vance could make a lovely set of matched defendants.
IANAL, so I’m hoping to get a more knowledgeable opinion than my own on this question: Do residents of Springfield, especially those Haitian migrants who’ve had property destroyed or received threats of harm, have standing to sue the GOP nominees for their incendiary statements?
My understanding of libel/defamation law is that a successful tort requires two elements: the defendant makes a statement defaming a person or group which (s)he knows to be false, which leads to provable harm to the plaintiff.
There are some exceptions. Jerry Falwell lost his suit against Larry Flynt because the things Flynt published about Falwell in Hustler magazine were so obviously over-the-top satirical that they would not be taken as true allegations.
The threshold for standing is also much higher for “public persons” than your average Joe. Courts have long ruled that, if you want to play in the arena, you’d better have tough skin.
I believe the residents of Springfield, particularly recently located Haitians, have a decent case, checking all the boxes, against Trump/Vance. The immigrants are not famous pols or entertainers. The allegations made (repeatedly) are untrue and were known to be untrue before Vance ever made them. They and their fellow Springfielders have most assuredly suffered harm due to the false statements. The intent of the claims can’t be considered satirical if over half of Republicans, the target audience, believe them.
As I say, I am no lawyer, but, from what I know of the criteria, it seems a winnable case. Vance could conceivably argue a Speech and Debate clause defense, but Trump is just a regular felon out on bail at this point, no immunity for him.
Thoughts?
