
(TargetDailyNews.com) – It’s almost too absurd to be true. Nina Jankowicz, the former and short-time head of the now-dissolved “disinformation board” at the Department of Homeland Security, tried to sue Fox News for defamation because Fox News accurately described her role.
But a judge in Delaware saw through her ploy and dismissed the suit from the self-described “Mary Poppins of disinformation.” Why? Because everything Fox said about her was demonstrably true.
The U.S. government has taken a hard authoritarian turn in recent years, attempting to crack down on free speech in ways most living Americans have never seen. The short-lived “disinformation board” that Jankowicz headed is just one example. On another front, the federal government had been pressuring social media companies like Facebook and Twitter/X to suppress user speech the government found unflattering. The Supreme Court recently ruled for the federal government, saying that the plaintiff states who brought suit could not prove they were harmed.
Many Americans found Jankowicz’s manic presentation style, a sort of authoritarian musical theater, as disturbing as the mission of the disinformation board. She was subject to widespread ridicule, which may have prompted her defamation suit against Fox.
In her complaint, Jankowicz cited 37 statements by Fox News that she claimed were defamatory. The court disagreed. Federal Judge Colm. F. Connolly ruled that 36 of the 37 statements made by Fox were “materially true” and therefore could not possibly be “defamation.” In addition, he noted that those 36 statements were made about the disinformation board, not about Jankowicz personally.
And that 37th statement? Judge Connolly wrote that it referred again to the disinformation board and not to its staff and that the statement was factually true.
Libel and defamation law are widely misunderstood in America. While there are gray areas, for the most part, if a statement is factually true, that fact is a complete defense against a libel accusation. In addition, plaintiffs who allege libel or defamation have to meet a high bar of proof that includes showing that their opponents acted recklessly, knew that their statements were untrue, and/or acted with malice. Plaintiffs only rarely win their cases.
Copyright 2024, TargetDailyNews.com