Donald Trump Threatens Ridiculous Defamation Lawsuit Over Attack Ad

from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept

Donald Trump may be running for President, but apparently his notoriously thin-skinned approach (along with the quick legal trigger) to handling criticism has not yet gone away. Trump has been fighting with the conservative group Club for Growth for some time, and it put out something of an attack ad against him noting, among other things, that Trump has supported raising taxes (a huge no-no for the Club for Growth) among other things. As political attack ads go, this one is fairly tame. But it didn't stop Trump from having his lawyers send a blustery cease and desist letter to Club for Growth, claiming the ad is defamatory (the letter was first posted by Olivia Nuzzi from the Daily Beast):

Simply stated, your Attack Ad is not only completely disingenuous, but replete with outright lies, false, defamatory and destructive statements and downright fabrications which you fully know to be untrue, thereby exposing you and your so-called "club" to liability for damages and other tortious harm. For example, while your Attack Ad blatantly misrepresents to the public that Mr. Trump "supports higher taxes", nothing could be further from the truth. To be clear, Mr. Trump's tax plan, which is scheduled to be released later this week, supports a lowering of taxes.

Not surprisingly, a closer look at your Attack Ad reveals that your supposed "source" for this statement is -- according to the small print on your website -- nothing more than a single article published in the Advocate on February 15, 2000, which quoted Mr. Trump as supposedly saying he would "impose a one-time net worth tax of 14.25% on the superwealthy ... to pay off the national debt." That's it. While a reputable organization would have at least had the decency to disclose its source -- and the fact that the source article is more than 15 years old -- your pitiful little grup conveniently chose to leave that information out in a delierate attempt to mislead the public into believing that it is reflective of Mr. Trump's current position -- when unquestionably, it is not. Making matters worse, you then chose to appear on several talk shows, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, in which you furthered the erroneous notion that Mr. Trump "supports higher taxes" even though you have absolutely no factual support for that statement. In other words, you lied. Mr. Trump does not support higher taxes. This is the very definition of libel.

Actually, it's not even close to the definition of libel. It's almost certainly not libel at all.

The letter concludes in usual bluster:

In the event, however, we do not promptly receive these assurances, please be advised that we will commence a multi-million dollar lawsuit against you personally and your organization for your false and defamatory statements and the damage you have intentionally caused in my client's interests as well as pursue all other remedies available to us at law or in equity.

You'd think that someone running for president would know better than to totally flip his lid over some random attack ad. You'd think that his lawyer would (1) know that this is not defamation and that (2) threatening as such only gives the original ad much more attention. Trump, as a very public figure, would need to show that the information in the ad was not just false, but that Club for Growth knew it was false and deliberately posted such false information to harm Trump. That's not going to happen, not in the least because there's plenty of evidence to support the claims that Trump has advocated (recently) for higher taxes. The Federalist provides a list of some recent articles:

ABC (Aug. 6): Donald Trump Once Proposed the Biggest Tax Hike Ever
Bloomberg (Aug. 26): Donald Trump says he wants to raise taxes on himself
CNN (Aug. 27): Donald Trump: Tax the rich more
New York Times (Aug. 31): Increase taxes? Talk by Donald Trump alarms G.O.P.
International Business Times (Sept. 8): Elizabeth Warren Praises Donald Trump Tax Plan

Yeah, good luck with that "very definition of libel" thing.

Club for Growth seemed to take the whole thing in stride, tweeting out the following reply: If you can't read it, it says: Short response to @realDonaldTrump Stop Whining. Threatening a bullshit SLAPP suit against a political attack ad that says things that are basically true doesn't seem particularly presidential.

Filed Under: attack ad, donald trump, first amendment, raise taxes, slapp, taxes, thin skin
Companies: club for growth

Canadian Politician Uses Nutty Hybrid Copyright Complaint In Attempt To Stifle Criticism

from the if-this-then-that dept

The political debate in Canada is heating up, with the Conservative party recently launching a series of attack ads aimed at the new Liberal party leader, Justin Trudeau. Whatever you think of these kinds of ads — and I am of the mind that it sucks to see them getting more and more popular in Canada, no matter which party is using them — former Liberal leader and current Liberal MP Stéphane Dion has now shown everyone how not to respond to them. In a letter to Canada's election regulators, Dion has presented the incredibly twisted argument that the footage in these ads violates copyright law, which makes it an illegal campaign contribution:

Recently, the CPC used footage owned by the Huffington Post and CTV in a television advertising campaign directed at the Liberal Party of Canada. These advertisements are being aired nationally, including in Labrador where a by-election is currently being held. I understand from media reports that the CPC is using this footage without the copyright holders’ permission and presumably without paying the copyright holders to license the material. I understand that the licensing of copyrighted materials ordinarily comes at a cost.

I am raising my concerns with you because the CPC’s unauthorized use of this material, while inconsistent with our country’s copyright laws, may also be non-compliant with the Canada Elections Act (the “Act”). In my view, the unpaid use of copyrighted material is a “non-monetary contribution” to the CPC, as defined in s.2(1) of the Act.

We've seen lots of people try to use copyright for the sole purpose of shutting down criticism before, but this situation is unique because of just how weird Dion's argument is. He's not actually asking for the Conservative party to be penalized for infringing on copyrights, or for the commercials to be blocked because they are infringing — how could he? He's not the copyright holder. Instead, he's claiming that making unauthorized and also unpaid use of the footage constitutes accepting non-monetary campaign contributions from CTV and the Huffington Post, and is asking for an investigation based on election rules.

Firstly, this just makes the Liberal party look insecure. It's hard to believe there is any real concern about this as a campaign funding issue — it's an attempt to shut up critics, plain and simple. More importantly, commentary and criticism are protected under Canada's fair dealing laws just like they are under America's fair use laws, which rips the foundation right out from under this argument. The Conservatives have every right to use the footage in this way without a license, but Dion's request hinges on the idea that they didn't pay for a license when they should have. Even if that were true, the idea that using something without permission counts as a "contribution" from the rightsholder is bizarre on the surface and likely to baffle most people — even if the definitions in the Elections Act make it at least conceivable that such an argument could prevail. In a battle for the people's approval and support, devious policy tactics don't look any better than aggressive attack ads.

Moreover, what exactly does Dion want here anyway? For Elections Canada to start investigating a civil copyright issue that hasn't even been raised by the people with standing to do so? How would that even work? Without an accusation of copyright infringement from CTV or the Huffington Post, there's no basis on which to investigate this. So far, the only word from the two news organizations has been to confirm that they didn't give permission, and that they have "made our concerns known" — they haven't even actually said they think the use was infringing, let alone brought a lawsuit. And if the Conservatives were sued over copyright, and a court found them guilty of infringement and ordered them to pay, would this still be an illegal campaign contribution? Dion's whole argument is petty at best, and utterly paradoxical at worst.

Filed Under: attack ad, canada, justin trudeau, stephane dion

Hilarious Attack Ad In Florida Suggests That Legalizing Autonomous Vehicles Puts Old People At Risk

from the run-for-your-lives dept

It's political silly season, so you expect to see all kinds of ridiculous campaign ads, and in local elections they can get particularly bizarre. Most of them have little to do with technology and innovation and things that we focus on, but here's one that's been making the rounds that seems worth discussing here. A local campaign ad in Florida attacked candidate Jeff Brandes for... legalizing "driverless cars" in Florida. First, just watch it: The voice over and the graphics are pretty funny, but hilariously wrong. The idea that driverless cars are going to run down little old ladies in the street seems pretty odd -- especially when you consider the driving ability of some of those little, old ladies themselves. I've spent plenty of time in Florida, and I'd feel a hell of a lot safer with autonomous vehicles on the road than some of those little, old ladies behind the wheel.

Then, the ad "quotes" Forbes supposedly saying that "Driverless Cars for All: More DANGEROUS Than Driving." Here's the screenshot: Except... as Alex Knapp at Forbes points out, if you look at the actual article in question, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the physical safety of autonomous vehicles, but is more of a political discussion about the idea that, someday, in someone's imagination, we'll all be required to use autonomous vehicles, rather than be able to make bad distracted driving choices on our own. In other words, completely unrelated to what the ad appears to be suggesting.

But, more seriously, the ad then attacks the candidate by saying he should be focused on the economy and jobs. Um. You know one good way to do that? It's to help advance job-creating technology and innovations. You'd think that seniors in Florida would be excited, not worried about autonomous vehicles, in that they could help make them a lot more mobile.

Either way, the ad is silly, and pure misleading luddism targeted at Florida seniors. And, clearly, they didn't work, as the guy won his primary anyway. Oh, and it's worth noting that his opposing candidate -- the one that ad wanted the little old ladies to vote for? Yeah, he voted in favor of the same proposal to allow autonomous vehicles on the roads in Florida too. Ah, politics...

Filed Under: attack ad, autonomous vehicles, jeff brandes, politics