Charles Harder Sends Ridiculous Threat Letter To People On Behalf Of Melania Trump
from the do-you-even-know-what-defamation-means? dept
Oh Charles Harder. You just keep supplying more and more fodder for Techdirt stories. You may remember Harder as the lawyer thrust into the public realm after Peter Thiel allegedly bankrolled him to start a new law firm with a focus on taking on any lawsuit that might help bring down Gawker. Having succeeded in bringing down Gawker through dubious lawsuits, Harder has moved on (well, not entirely) to bigger fish, including Roger Ailes and Melania Trump.And while Donald Trump has been focusing his defamation threats mostly on the NY Times, Melania and Harder have decided to focus on People Magazine. As you probably have heard by now, among the fairly long list of articles that came out on Wednesday and Thursday involving women saying that Donald Trump sexually assaulted (or engaged in other sketchy behavior) was a really disturbing story at People Magazine, where People writer Natasha Stoynoff wrote about Trump pushing her against the wall and kissing her, while she was there to interview both Donald and Melania. In fact, Stoynoff claims that the assault happened during a break in the interview with the couple, while a pregnant Melania had gone upstairs to change.
Some people had been asking how Melania had been reacting to this story, which (unlike many of the other accusations) much more closely involved her, in that it took place while she was in the home and happened to a reporter who was writing a story on the couple. Well, now we know. Melania tweeted out a retraction demand to People written by Charles Harder. And it's even more ridiculous that Harder's usual threat letters. The crux of it is that Melania denies a few unimportant side details of the article around Stoynoff's claim that she ran into Melania a year or so later, after she'd left the Trump beat (because of Trump's actions). Harder claims that Melaina never ran into Stoynoff:
The following statements in the Story, among others, are false and completely fictionalized. We therefore demand that you immediately and permanently remove each of these statements from the Story, and print a prominent retraction and apology:Harder then claims that if People does not remove and retract those statements then it "will require Mrs. Trump to consider her legal options."The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly. At the time in question, Mrs. Trump would not have even recognized Ms. Stoynoff if they had encountered one another on the street.
- "That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron."
- "'Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?' she asked, giving me a hug."
- "I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot."
Let's put this simply: Mrs. Trump's legal options are... nothing. Nada. Zilch. Note that Harder did not claim that any of these statements are defamatory. Because even he must know that they are not defamatory even if they are false. There is no harm in those statements. There is no nothing. They are just someone remembering what may have happened. Even if it didn't happen, that doesn't create any legal liability or problem, and it's certainly not defamation.
As with Donald, it seems like these weak ass legal "threat" letters seem more designed to scare off others with the knowledge that if you come forward or if you publish a story about someone who comes forward, the Trump team of lawyers will hassle you in some manner or another.
But, really, this particular letter is so weak and so empty of any actual issue, that you have to wonder what the hell is going on. Is it that Melania demanded something be done and this was the best that Harder could muster up given the lack of anything legitimate to whine about? Could it be that Harder thinks he can actually bully People into pulling these minor facts? It's not at all clear, and while I guess maybe (?!?) this helps Harder in that clueless censorious celebrities know they can go to him and he'll send clearly ridiculous threat letters on their behalf, for lots of other people, it just undermines any credibility Harder has on the subject of defamation and free speech. He looks completely foolish and petty.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charles harder, chilling effects, defamation, donald trump, false statements, free speech, melania trump, natasha stoynoff, people magazine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Free speech will only apply to Trump speech?
Trump focuses on the white male electorate with a grudge against government. Imagine what would happen to free speech with the Trumps in the White House...Free speech will only apply to Trump speech?
If I were Hillary I'd hammer on this in the next debate, and yes, include Melania. If Donald brings Bill's past misconduct in the debate, it only seems proper to inlclude Melania's present misconduct in too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are we saying he needs to "lawyer harder?"
...
...
I'll just show myself out...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting self-contradiction here
If Mrs. Trump was incapable of recognizing Ms. Stoynoff, as is stated here by her attorney, then how would she know if she encountered her on the street?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bingo
This. It is intimidation to prevent a cosby like situation where more of his accusers come out against him.
But worse than even that (because I am sure there would be many attorneys and others who would happily pay to defend them against Trump), Trump also has his surrogates and his Reddit Troll army going after these folks. These woman are bravely going public about being assaulted knowing that doing so would make them victims again by the same man and his gang of bullies attacking them again and again for likely years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Standard Operating Procedure
Note the Washington Post got the open mike on bus story in a brown envelope because NBC and its lawyers hemmed and hawed about any release for so long that someone got pissed off waiting. Lawyers! The Trump threats work sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Litigation is part of that threat that monied interests can leverage against others. Including for sex and silence.
She explains her own hesitation soon after.
I was afraid that a famous, powerful, wealthy man could and would discredit and destroy me, especially if I got his coveted PEOPLE feature killed.
Harder is part of that power, still trying to shut her up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dont bother me
NYT just does not interest me. It can go either way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dont bother me
Will you still be ok with it when it happens to an organization you do like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dont bother me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you sleepy from being under your rock for so long? Take a stretch, here's some coffee and I'll get you caught up.
About 30 years ago, most folks got their news from newspapers. You already know what those are. Well over time, the Internet really really took off. You'll be amazed, it's HUGE! And now newspapers are almost all no longer delivering printed press anymore. They are mostly now over this thing called the World Wide Web (www). And we get most of our news now over computer, tablet and even our phones! Yea! Our phones are like mini computers! Well, I know that's alot to digest along with your coffee. Just relax, and welcome to the 21st century Mr. AC. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dont bother me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dont bother me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free speech will only apply to Trump speech?
> If I were Hillary I'd hammer on this in the next debate, and yes, include Melania.
Remember Michelle Obama's words: "When they go low, we go high." At least we SHOULD.
I don't care which party you support, surely everyone can agree that we need to step back from this insult-driven election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dont bother me
You will especially miss them when nobody is acting as a counter abuse of power.
Don't ever take the death of any media company lightly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Free speech will only apply to Trump speech?
I would even say this if Melania was running. If she was Trump and his comments should be off the table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dont bother me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting self-contradiction here
Could equally mean refuse to recognize, rather than not recognize.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dont bother me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dont bother me
most of what i read is just twitter gossip they put on the front page and call news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Send them to my father-in-laws
What he doesn't have is WIFI. Sure I could add at it to his existing setup but what is the point, it is too slow to do anything meaningful. I have a bunch of cool Christmas gifts picked out for the in-laws that I can't get them; like Amazon Prime and Netflix for their smart TV and an Echo Dot radio... but no instead I will end up getting them a new microwave, how lame is that.
The only silver lining is that Verizon sent him a letter stating that DSL was being discontinued in like 6 months or so.
Bottom line is that although it is shady to not repair someones DSL if the service still exists, but for the love of God please head over to my in-laws and break their existing DSL and then not fix it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes I know
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Come after you personally"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
li·bel
ˈlībəl/
noun
noun: libel; plural noun: libels
1.
Law
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Interesting self-contradiction here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not defamation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not defamation
2) If that previous sentence is defamatory, it's defamatory against Donald Trump, not Melania, as the story neither states nor implies that Melania was complicit with what Trump did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
perhaps he should NERD Harder!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]