Key Takeaways:
– A New York jury in 2023 found Donald Trump liable for a sexual assault incident involving E. Jean Carroll.
– The assault involved non-consensual penetration places it under the legal definition of ‘rape.’
– ABC News referred to the incident as ‘rape’ on-air, leading to a defamation lawsuit from Trump.
– The network opted to pay Trump $15m and issued a public apology, despite the statement being supported by legal definitions.
– This decision reflects a worrying trend among corporations who put profit over First Amendment rights under corporate pressure.
Understanding the Court’s Verdict
In the eyes of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, ‘rape’ has been defined since 2012 as any penetration, however slight, with any body part or object, without the victim’s consent. In 2023, a New York jury used this definition to find Donald Trump guilty of sexual assault. According to the presiding U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan’s memorandum, Trump’s actions towards E. Jean Carroll were indeed considered as rape.
ABC’s Unexpected Settlement
Several months after this court decision, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos publicly referred to the incident as rape. Trump immediately sued ABC for defamation. Surprisingly, despite having little legal basis for this claim, ABC chose to settle the case instead of fighting it. In a move to shield its parent company, Disney’s other corporate interests, ABC paid Trump $15m and issued a public apology.
The Impact on Free Speech
This action by ABC has raised alarming concerns over the power of profit-led corporate interests on free speech. Leaders of major corporations like Meta, OpenAI, Washington Post, and Time Magazine have also capitulated to such pressures to keep Trump – and his considerable influence – appeased. This trend is threatening the very core of democracy – the First Amendment.
Flynn vs Wilson: A Case for Free Speech
In contrast to ABC’s approach, another First Amendment case showcased a stronger commitment to free speech. When Mike Flynn, a controversial right-wing figure, sued Rick Wilson, a founder of the Lincoln Project, for defamation over several tweets, the Florida Court of Appeals dismissed the claim. This case underlines that debate on public issues should be uninhibited and robust, even if it sometimes includes sharp, unpleasant attacks.
The Dangers of Corporate Manipulation
In the case of Trump vs ABC, the decision to settle was likely against the wishes of the ABC News president but may have been a strategic move to protect Disney’s longer-term corporate interests. Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, was likely prioritizing the corporation’s bottom line over the duty to uphold free speech.
However, this attitude shared by other corporate tycoons shows how powerful corporations are increasingly using their influence to manipulate free press to their advantage. They may feel that they can use political movements like Trump’s for their gain, but history often teaches us otherwise. As the BBC’s History Magazine notes, many of Germany’s corporate elites thought they could use Hitler for their interests, but within a few months, it became clear they had become the pawns.
Conclusion
The worrying trend of corporations sacrificing free press rights for their financial gain needs to be addressed if we are to uphold the truth and democracy. With the First Amendment being challenged by corporations with conflicting interests, the preservation of open, honest debate on public issues is more crucial than ever. The verdict of the Florida Court of Appeals – that public debate may involve vehement attacks and doesn’t necessarily have to be polite or fair – might be a mantra that other corporations should keep in mind before they make decisions that could potentially threaten the essence of democracy.