Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Tampa Bay Times: Appeals court rules in favor of Rick Wilson in Michael Flynn defamation lawsuit
Tampa Bay Times - (archived: https://archive.ph/iwMLu ) Appeals court rules in favor of Rick Wilson in Michael Flynn defamation lawsuit
Flynn sued Wilson last year after Wilson called him a “Putin employee” and retweeted “FYI, Mike Flynn is Q,” a reference to the QAnon conspiracy theory.
TALLAHASSEE — A state appeals court Wednesday upheld a decision dismissing a defamation lawsuit that former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn filed against Rick Wilson, a political strategist and key player in the “Never Trump” movement.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit, which Flynn filed because of two social media posts. Wilson referred to Flynn in a 2022 tweet as “Putin employee Mike Flynn” and in 2023 retweeted “FYI, Mike Flynn is Q.”
Flynn filed the lawsuit last year in Sarasota County, but Circuit Judge Hunter Carroll ruled for Wilson on Jan. 30.
The appeals court panel Wednesday described Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and Sarasota County resident, as a “quintessential public figure” and said he needed to show that Wilson published the posts with actual malice. In an 18-page opinion, the court said Flynn did not meet that legal standard and that the tweets were “nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole or opinion.”
“We have the privilege of living in a country with a ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks,’” the opinion said, partially quoting a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. “Like it or not, such attacks are a characteristic feature of our democracy — regardless of the political persuasion of the speaker and regardless of the political persuasion of the public figure on the receiving end of that speech. As the trial court noted, Wilson’s tweets may not have been polite, and they may not have been fair. But the First Amendment required neither, and so we affirm (Carroll’s decision).”
/snip
Flynn sued Wilson last year after Wilson called him a “Putin employee” and retweeted “FYI, Mike Flynn is Q,” a reference to the QAnon conspiracy theory.
TALLAHASSEE — A state appeals court Wednesday upheld a decision dismissing a defamation lawsuit that former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn filed against Rick Wilson, a political strategist and key player in the “Never Trump” movement.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected the lawsuit, which Flynn filed because of two social media posts. Wilson referred to Flynn in a 2022 tweet as “Putin employee Mike Flynn” and in 2023 retweeted “FYI, Mike Flynn is Q.”
Flynn filed the lawsuit last year in Sarasota County, but Circuit Judge Hunter Carroll ruled for Wilson on Jan. 30.
The appeals court panel Wednesday described Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and Sarasota County resident, as a “quintessential public figure” and said he needed to show that Wilson published the posts with actual malice. In an 18-page opinion, the court said Flynn did not meet that legal standard and that the tweets were “nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole or opinion.”
“We have the privilege of living in a country with a ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks,’” the opinion said, partially quoting a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. “Like it or not, such attacks are a characteristic feature of our democracy — regardless of the political persuasion of the speaker and regardless of the political persuasion of the public figure on the receiving end of that speech. As the trial court noted, Wilson’s tweets may not have been polite, and they may not have been fair. But the First Amendment required neither, and so we affirm (Carroll’s decision).”
/snip
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
