They are legally vulnerable. The problem is that libel/defamation requires several specific tests to prove, some of which often dont apply to such situations.
They have to make a factual assertion that is demonstrably untrue. It cant be just an opinion. (This one heavily depends on the specifics what is claimed)
It must be publicated or otherwise spread to a third party. (This one obviously is the easiest test in this case)
The claim must clearly be of and concerning the plaintiff, i.e. the one claiming to have been defamed. (Again, this one depends. When they are talking about “these people”, “the protesters”, etc. but not specific individuals, this gets very hard to prove they were even including any specific individuals)
If the person claiming defamation is a public figure, they have to prove they either knew their claim was untrue or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth. If they are a private figure they have to prove that they at least acted with negligence when making their claim, meaning they didnt take reasonable steps to verify information. (This can also be a sticking point as they may claim that they had “good sources,” like the federal government, that verified their claims)
The claim has to have caused actual damages to the person, such as if their livelihood was harmed or receiving death threats. It can’t just be their feelings hurt or people being mad at them. (Again, situational for the people, their job, their situation, and the reactions of others.
Personally I think actual damages is a bad bar because that depends on factors beyond the defamer’s actions. I think the bar should be the reasonabulity of the risk of damages, instead. Like they should’ve known calling someone a looter may lose them a job, regardless of whether the actually lose a job or even had one already, right?
But anyway, a lot of the lies they tell have just enough wiggle room to claim that it fails on at least one of these tests. Like maybe they weren’t make a specific claim of fact was demonstrably untrue, or they were stating opinion but phrasing it as fact. Or maybe they made a claim about the actions of a group that was true of some, but not all of them. Or maybe they made specific claims of criminal activity and get to claim they verified it with a “reliable” source, like the DOJ or FBI. Or maybe the person can’t prove material damages were caused from the defamation. And then of course, in all of these cases, the defamed must actually seek out justice by bringing suit against the defamers, which plenty do have the money, time or know-how to do.
I highly doubt that any justice will come at scale after this unless huge class action suits are filed, but the Supreme Court has weakened class actions too.
They are legally vulnerable. The problem is that libel/defamation requires several specific tests to prove, some of which often dont apply to such situations.
They have to make a factual assertion that is demonstrably untrue. It cant be just an opinion. (This one heavily depends on the specifics what is claimed)
It must be publicated or otherwise spread to a third party. (This one obviously is the easiest test in this case)
The claim must clearly be of and concerning the plaintiff, i.e. the one claiming to have been defamed. (Again, this one depends. When they are talking about “these people”, “the protesters”, etc. but not specific individuals, this gets very hard to prove they were even including any specific individuals)
If the person claiming defamation is a public figure, they have to prove they either knew their claim was untrue or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth. If they are a private figure they have to prove that they at least acted with negligence when making their claim, meaning they didnt take reasonable steps to verify information. (This can also be a sticking point as they may claim that they had “good sources,” like the federal government, that verified their claims)
The claim has to have caused actual damages to the person, such as if their livelihood was harmed or receiving death threats. It can’t just be their feelings hurt or people being mad at them. (Again, situational for the people, their job, their situation, and the reactions of others.
Personally I think actual damages is a bad bar because that depends on factors beyond the defamer’s actions. I think the bar should be the reasonabulity of the risk of damages, instead. Like they should’ve known calling someone a looter may lose them a job, regardless of whether the actually lose a job or even had one already, right?
But anyway, a lot of the lies they tell have just enough wiggle room to claim that it fails on at least one of these tests. Like maybe they weren’t make a specific claim of fact was demonstrably untrue, or they were stating opinion but phrasing it as fact. Or maybe they made a claim about the actions of a group that was true of some, but not all of them. Or maybe they made specific claims of criminal activity and get to claim they verified it with a “reliable” source, like the DOJ or FBI. Or maybe the person can’t prove material damages were caused from the defamation. And then of course, in all of these cases, the defamed must actually seek out justice by bringing suit against the defamers, which plenty do have the money, time or know-how to do.
I highly doubt that any justice will come at scale after this unless huge class action suits are filed, but the Supreme Court has weakened class actions too.