Definire “big lie” l’approccio di Trump, e paragonarlo ad un nazista, non è diffamazione ma espressione di opinione

Così il giudice Singhal che in Sout. Dist-. court of Florida CASE NO. 22-61842-CIV-SINGHAL Trump v. CNN, 28 luglio 2023 rigetta la domanda risarcitoria del primo  contro la seconda per danni puniutivi di $ 475 milioni. (notizia dal Guardian)

<<The problem is essentially two-fold.  First, the complained of statements are opinion, not factually false statements, and therefore are not actionable.  Second, the reasonable viewer, unlike when Sullivan, Butts or Gertz were decided, no longer takes the time to research and verify reporting that often is not, in fact, news. As an example, only one month ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a well written 237-page joint opinion with vastly divergent views in two cases known widely as the Affirmative Action decisions.5 Within minutes of the release of the opinion, the free press had reported just what the opinion supposedly said and meant although it was clearly impossible that the reporter had read the opinion. And of course, those initial news articles were repeatedly shared, commented upon and disseminated over social media and still to this day the reasonable viewer very likely hasn’t read the opinion and never will. This is the news model of today. It is far different than that in Sullivan which altered law that existed for 175 years and has spawned a cottage industry over the last 60. But this too is not actionable.
Trump argues that CNN’s motivation for describing his election challenges as “the Big Lie” was to undermine Trump’s political standing. But political motivation does not establish falsity. The “intention to portray [a] public figure in [a] negative light, even when motivated by ill will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. CNN Broad., Inc., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1357 n.4 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (quoting Don King Productions, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 40 So. 3d 40, 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). See also Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, 541 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (political motivation irrelevant to defamation claim); cf. Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666-67 (1989) (profit motive behind publication does not establish actual malice).
Acknowledging that CNN acted with political enmity does not save this case; the Complaint alleges no false statements of fact. Trump complains that CNN described his election challenges as “the Big Lie.” Trump argues that “the Big Lie” is a phrase attributed to Joseph Goebbels and that CNN’s use of the phrase wrongly links Trump with the Hitler regime in the public eye. This is a stacking of inferences that cannot support a finding of falsehood. See Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272, 1288 (5th Cir. 1981) abrogated on other grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989)>>

E poi:

<<Trump alleges that “the Big Lie” refers to a Nazi “propaganda campaign to justify Jewish persecution and genocide.” (DE [1] ¶ 23). Like Trump and CNN personalities Ashleigh Banfield and Paul Steinhauser (see (DE [1] ¶ 24), the Court finds Nazi references in the political discourse (made by whichever “side”) to be odious and repugnant. But bad rhetoric is not defamation when it does not include false statements of fact. CNN’s use of the phrase “the Big Lie” in connection with Trump’s election challenges does not give rise to a plausible inference that Trump advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews or any other group of people. No reasonable viewer could (or should) plausibly make that reference>>