As I was reading the chapter on defamation and libel, I could not help but think about transpired this past weekend with the National Football League. The discussion around Colin Kaepernick's symbolic kneeling during the National Anthem has incited much dialogue about the First Amendment and what it entails. However during a speech this past weekend, President Trump decided to call individuals like Kaepernick who "disrespect the flag", a son of a bitch. He then continues to say that those who don't stand for the National Anthem are disrespecting our flag and country and should be fired or suspended.
As explained in our textbook, public figures "occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence" (Tedford & Herbeck, 90). Colin Kaepernick is a public figure, and as such it is difficult to hard to prove defamation in most cases. But I would argue that Trump's use of slander towards athletes like Kaepernick would be considered libel. He speaks ill of Kaepernick, tarnishing his reputation as an American and as a citizen (defamation). It was a publicized speech, in front of an audience and recorded. It was soon disseminated by media outlets (publication). And even though he wasn't named in the speech specifically, he was identifiable, much like L. B. Sullivan in New York Times v. Sullivan (Tedford & Herbeck, 86). One could say that because President Trump mentions that athletes should be fired, there are actual damages and malice that is involved. Analysts believe that since Kaepernick's protests, no team has been willing to sign him. In addition to making him "unemployable", it cost him his job. If one were to look at all these criterion, should Trump should be held accountable for his words?
Sources
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
As explained in our textbook, public figures "occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence" (Tedford & Herbeck, 90). Colin Kaepernick is a public figure, and as such it is difficult to hard to prove defamation in most cases. But I would argue that Trump's use of slander towards athletes like Kaepernick would be considered libel. He speaks ill of Kaepernick, tarnishing his reputation as an American and as a citizen (defamation). It was a publicized speech, in front of an audience and recorded. It was soon disseminated by media outlets (publication). And even though he wasn't named in the speech specifically, he was identifiable, much like L. B. Sullivan in New York Times v. Sullivan (Tedford & Herbeck, 86). One could say that because President Trump mentions that athletes should be fired, there are actual damages and malice that is involved. Analysts believe that since Kaepernick's protests, no team has been willing to sign him. In addition to making him "unemployable", it cost him his job. If one were to look at all these criterion, should Trump should be held accountable for his words?
Sources
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
Levine, Sam. "Colin Kaepernick's Mom Has No Time For Trump Calling Her Son A 'Son Of A Bitch'." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Sept. 2017. Web.
Remnick, David. "The Racial Demagoguery of Trump's Assaults on Colin Kaepernick and Steph Curry." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 23 Sept. 2017. Web.
Defamation is “a [false] statement that injures the reputation of a third party … [both with] libel (written statements) and slander (oral statements),” (Kim, 1). I am aware of Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the racial injustices that have been enacted on black people. During the reelection prospects of Senator Luther Johnson Strange III, Trump took to the stage and called out football players for taking a knee during the national anthem”; people who were only expressing their freedom of speech amendment. Speaking in front of a majority white crowd, Trump called them “sons of b***hes”, and directed for NFL owners to fire players on the field for disrespecting the flag, (Remnick 1); ruining their reputation in the eyes of the public, and even jeopardizing their source of income. Circling back to the Cornell Law definition that I gave about defamation, Trump had the intention of disseminating fallacies that had malicious intentions.
ReplyDeleteThe tone that Trump used in his rhetoric was one that had the ability to incite reaction in his audience, (Tedford & Herbeck, 93). Going back to what we discussed in class today, the word we used was “actionable”. Trump did not take care to speak under legal context and is thus not considered a “reasonable person”. He was under the guise that the football players were taking a knee to disrespect the flag and the national anthem, when it was a protest of the racial injustice and discrimination of people of color, and more specifically black people. Spewing slanderous remarks and engaging in open rhetoric that had media outlets disseminate what he said puts him under violation of libel laws. To answer your question, Trump should be held accountable for his words and be subjected to the consequences that come with the breaking libel laws since the violations can be proven at a “state level”, (Tedford & Herbeck, 73).
I think it would be incredibly hard for Colin Kaepernick to win (or even convince a lawyer to take) any kind of defamation case against Donald Trump for two reasons. The first being, that Kaepernick is a public figure and would have to show “actual malice” which is not an easy thing to prove—maybe Trump calling for any player who kneels during the anthem, to be fired could count, still it is not easy to prove. Second, NFL teams have refused to sign him (despite being a decent quarterback), which I think could be used as evidence that his reputation is already tarnished—he wasn’t employed before Trump said anything, so Donald Trump's speech isn't necessarily doing any more damage.
ReplyDeleteDefamation is tricky, especially when it involves public figures. It seems like it should be cut and dried, but it really is not. But just because Trump’s speech might not legally be defamation does not mean he shouldn’t be held accountable for what he said. Trump's statements were nasty and, despite his protestations, definitely about race—as the protests he was criticizing were about racial injustice. His comments are unacceptable and he should be held accountable for them. I just don't think libel, slander or defamation would be the most effective way to do it.
I agree, what trump is doing to the NFL is making people choose sides and is diving us more than ever, and instead of helping our allies or even us, he tweets about this stuff. A lot more people re now kneeling in symbolism to show freedom of speech. He's the rosa parks of 2017. Do you think owners of NFL teams will side more with players or trump?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this shows a clear case of slander and this obviously shows that it depends on who is doing the defaming and how it is being said definitely matters in this situation. He used a different type of platform in order to try and divide athletes, but instead they united. President Trump's rant led to a whole social media frenzy from athletes all over the world and from every sport that you can imagine. President Trump doesn't respect the peaceful protest that some NFL players are participating in, but he is okay with white supremacist inciting violence down streets and even said that there were "good people" in that crowd. I just think that President Trump needs to handle the governing of this country rather than going in a platform he obviously knows nothing about.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump's recent actions towards the NFL and any athletes taking part in this social movement is rough. It is so difficult to understand how the so called "leader" of our country could be such a heartless person. Clearly, Trump and White House officials are more upset about the protest of the national anthem and the American flag than the actual racial implications of the protest. I find it reassuring that these comments have caused many of the players, coaches and owners to stand together in combating the presidents hate. So often, athletes are told "stick to sports" even though they are some of the biggest public figures in American culture and have the platform to make a significant impact.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDonald Trump is walking a fine line between defamation and exercising his first amendment right. It is interesting that Colin Kaepernick is only being accused of being disrespectful while Trump is potentially breaking the law. There is some case for defamation however since kaepernick is a public figure and Donald Trump is the president of the United States I don't see the case going anywhere. If there is one thing that Trump is good at it is rallying his supporters around him. This was a great tactic because it has done just that. His supporters have taken to Facebook, twitter, ect to express their opinions. They are practicing their first amendment rights to speak freely of the incident why can't Kaepernick practice his and kneel without potentially defamatory comments from Trump.
ReplyDelete