CupidS Escorts

Trump threatens to sue Trevor Noah

Previous Thread Next Thread
Dutch Oven

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,085
2,585
113
silentkisser said:
Noah would still likely win any lawsuit. There are four main defences for libel in Canada (though they are similar in the US):

  1. Truth: If what you said is truthful, then the case doesn't have merit.
  2. Fair comment: When an honest opinion is made in matters of public interest, provided the comment is based in true facts
  3. Qualified privilege - When the person making the statement has a legal, moral or social duty, and there is a corresponding interest (for example, reporting a crime to the police)
  4. Responsible Communication on matters of public interest: This is most to protect journalists, but matters if they are doing something in the public interest.

Now, Noah's comments would certainly fall under the Fair Comment section. He was joking. It doesn't matter if it was truthful or not. The fact that Trump and Clinton have been linked to Epstein is documented and well known. And, while jokes can be libellous, it is extremely difficult to win in the US, because public figures have a higher bar to prove libel. First, they need to prove the joke was malicious or that the joke was presented as an actual fact.

So, Trump could sue, but he would almost certainly lose. And, for that matter, if Trump won, an award would be difficult to calculate. I mean, did this joke actually damage his reputation? Probably not. Those who thought he was a steaming pile of shit probably still do, and those in the cult still think he's the second coming. So, maybe Trump would get $1 if he won?
Click to expand...
Fair comment does not cover attempts at humour. It covers opinion attached to reporting news.

The only real defense that Noah could advance is that because it was framed as a joke it shouldn't be interpreted as a genuine allegation about Trump's past conduct. This is analogous to the "satire" defence.

However, the problem with that defence for Noah is that the "joke" element of what he said centres on why Trump wants Greenland, not on whether Trump was ever on Epstein Island. The predicate of the joke is an allegation of fact. That takes it outside of the humour defense.

As to damages, punitive damages are appropriate when the libeler intends damage, but simply fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg and Phil C. McNasty
S

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
5,300
7,151
113
Dutch Oven said:
Fair comment does not cover attempts at humour. It covers opinion attached to reporting news.

The only real defense that Noah could advance is that because it was framed as a joke it shouldn't be interpreted as a genuine allegation about Trump's past conduct. This is analogous to the "satire" defence.

However, the problem with that defence for Noah is that the "joke" element of what he said centres on why Trump wants Greenland, not on whether Trump was ever on Epstein Island. The predicate of the joke is an allegation of fact. That takes it outside of the humour defense.

As to damages, punitive damages are appropriate when the libeler intends damage, but simply fails.
Click to expand...
While I am not a lawyer, I am fairly familiar with libel laws. And there are differences between Canada and the US. What I do know is that public figures have a significantly higher bar to prove libel than a nobody like you or me. I mean, if I said that you were a frequent visitor to Epstein Island without any proof, you could probably successfully sue me if you could prove it negatively impacted your reputation. However, this is clearly a joke. The only people who don't think its funny are Trump and his hanger ons. There is literally no chance Trump would win if he did sue. And, for the record, MANY jokes have a basis of fact, then skew to silliness. That certainly does not mean Noah committed libel.
 
Dutch Oven

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,085
2,585
113
silentkisser said:
While I am not a lawyer, I am fairly familiar with libel laws. And there are differences between Canada and the US. What I do know is that public figures have a significantly higher bar to prove libel than a nobody like you or me. I mean, if I said that you were a frequent visitor to Epstein Island without any proof, you could probably successfully sue me if you could prove it negatively impacted your reputation. However, this is clearly a joke. The only people who don't think its funny are Trump and his hanger ons. There is literally no chance Trump would win if he did sue. And, for the record, MANY jokes have a basis of fact, then skew to silliness. That certainly does not mean Noah committed libel.
Click to expand...
The part that Trump is complaining about is not "clearly" a joke. It's an unsubstantiated allegation that responsible media outlets would not disseminate as if it were proven fact.

The opinion of someone who is not a lawyer, nevermind not an American defamation law specialist, about the success of a libel lawsuit isn't worth much. However, putting that aside, your approach to analyzing the issue lacks the discipline even for casual debate. At least try to deal with the point made to you. Why do you say that the claim that Trump visited Epstein island was the joke, as opposed to the joke being that acquiring a new Epstein island is the real reason he wants to acquire Greenland. There are two parts to what Noah said. You are trying to conflate the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg
S

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
5,300
7,151
113
Dutch Oven said:
The part that Trump is complaining about is not "clearly" a joke. It's an unsubstantiated allegation that responsible media outlets would not disseminate as if it were proven fact.

The opinion of someone who is not a lawyer, nevermind not an American defamation law specialist, about the success of a libel lawsuit isn't worth much. However, putting that aside, your approach to analyzing the issue lacks the discipline even for casual debate. At least try to deal with the point made to you. Why do you say that the claim that Trump visited Epstein island was the joke, as opposed to the joke being that acquiring a new Epstein island is the real reason he wants to acquire Greenland. There are two parts to what Noah said. You are trying to conflate the two.
Click to expand...
Look, I will dumb this down as much as possible for you. Jokes of this nature do not rise to the level of defamation for a political figure in the US. That I can guarantee. No "ifs, ands or buts." Presidents since Kennedy (and probably earlier) were made fun of in the media. They've joked about scandals, they've joked about faux pas. I don't here Bill Clinton talking about suing. The whole point is that no matter how you feel about it, Trump doesn't have a let to stand on. Mind you, Trump will TACO. He talks a big game, threatens to sue a bunch of people every year, but never pulls the trigger.

But, don't take my word for it:


So, let's see what happens...

Edit: Just realize you might not be able to access this, so here is the article:


Trump Would Have Slim Chance in Court Against Trevor Noah, Experts Say
Legal experts said that jokes like the one told by Mr. Noah at the Grammys on Sunday were protected by the First Amendment.

Benjamin Mullin
By Benjamin Mullin
Feb. 2, 2026

President Trump early on Monday added Trevor Noah to the long list of high-profile individuals and institutions in his legal cross hairs after the comedian made a joke while hosting the Grammys about Mr. Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
But legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s threat to sue Mr. Noah, whom he called a “poor, pathetic, talentless, dope of an M.C.” on social media, has very little chance of succeeding in a courtroom.
“Trevor Noah is pretty clearly protected by the First Amendment,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “The fact that Noah was hosting the Grammys and not writing a news story in The Washington Post has constitutional significance,” he added.
Mr. Noah said on Sunday evening’s broadcast, which was aired on CBS, that Mr. Trump’s pursuit of Greenland made sense “because Epstein’s island is gone, he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.” Though Mr. Trump had been a friend of Mr. Epstein’s until the early 2000s, there is no evidence that he visited Mr. Epstein’s private island.

People and companies are protected by the First Amendment in cases where they make baseless claims about public figures in jest, Mr. Jaffer said. The most relevant case is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell from 1988, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement published by the magazine describing the televangelist Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse was protected under the Constitution.

“This is obviously a joke,” Greg Lukianoff, chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said of Mr. Noah’s comment. “Nobody’s listening to this going, ‘Oh my God, this means Trump really went to Epstein’s island!’”

Mr. Trump has been successful in extracting financial settlements from major corporations even in cases when legal experts said his claims had little hope of prevailing. Paramount, the parent company of CBS, last year settled a case brought by Mr. Trump for $16 million. Other companies, including Disney and Meta, have also settled with Mr. Trump, weighing those expenses against a prolonged legal battle with the most powerful person in the world.

A spokesman for CBS had no immediate comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LickingG2 and squeezer
J

JeanGary Diablo

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2017
2,238
3,285
113
How this would effectively pan out:

TRUMP's LAWYERS: Donald Trump is suing Trevor Noah for defamation.
TREVOR NOAH'S LAWYER: OK, we're going to then need to subpoena all the remainder of the 3-million unreleased and unredacted Epstein files to make sure what he said is not true.
TRUMP's LAWYERS: Our client was just joking. He's too busy to sue him. But he could if he wanted to.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: kherg007, LickingG2 and richaceg
S

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
5,300
7,151
113
JeanGary Diablo said:
How this would effectively pan out:

TRUMP's LAWYERS: Donald Trump is suing Trevor Noah for defamation.
TREVOR NOAH'S LAWYER: OK, we're going to then need to subpoena all the remainder of the 3-million unreleased and unredacted Epstein files to make sure what he said is not true.
TRUMP's LAWYERS: Our client was just joking. He's too busy to sue him. But he could if he wanted to.
Click to expand...
That...could never happen. You couldn't subpoena the justice department to release privileged information....Now, the documents that are already public are fair game. And, they could subpoena Trump's calendar and personal documents...so that is probably where this falls apart....
 
Dutch Oven

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,085
2,585
113
silentkisser said:
Look, I will dumb this down as much as possible for you. Jokes of this nature do not rise to the level of defamation for a political figure in the US. That I can guarantee. No "ifs, ands or buts." Presidents since Kennedy (and probably earlier) were made fun of in the media. They've joked about scandals, they've joked about faux pas. I don't here Bill Clinton talking about suing. The whole point is that no matter how you feel about it, Trump doesn't have a let to stand on. Mind you, Trump will TACO. He talks a big game, threatens to sue a bunch of people every year, but never pulls the trigger.

But, don't take my word for it:


So, let's see what happens...

Edit: Just realize you might not be able to access this, so here is the article:


Trump Would Have Slim Chance in Court Against Trevor Noah, Experts Say
Legal experts said that jokes like the one told by Mr. Noah at the Grammys on Sunday were protected by the First Amendment.

Benjamin Mullin
By Benjamin Mullin
Feb. 2, 2026

President Trump early on Monday added Trevor Noah to the long list of high-profile individuals and institutions in his legal cross hairs after the comedian made a joke while hosting the Grammys about Mr. Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
But legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s threat to sue Mr. Noah, whom he called a “poor, pathetic, talentless, dope of an M.C.” on social media, has very little chance of succeeding in a courtroom.
“Trevor Noah is pretty clearly protected by the First Amendment,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “The fact that Noah was hosting the Grammys and not writing a news story in The Washington Post has constitutional significance,” he added.
Mr. Noah said on Sunday evening’s broadcast, which was aired on CBS, that Mr. Trump’s pursuit of Greenland made sense “because Epstein’s island is gone, he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.” Though Mr. Trump had been a friend of Mr. Epstein’s until the early 2000s, there is no evidence that he visited Mr. Epstein’s private island.

People and companies are protected by the First Amendment in cases where they make baseless claims about public figures in jest, Mr. Jaffer said. The most relevant case is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell from 1988, in which the Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement published by the magazine describing the televangelist Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse was protected under the Constitution.

“This is obviously a joke,” Greg Lukianoff, chief executive of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said of Mr. Noah’s comment. “Nobody’s listening to this going, ‘Oh my God, this means Trump really went to Epstein’s island!’”

Mr. Trump has been successful in extracting financial settlements from major corporations even in cases when legal experts said his claims had little hope of prevailing. Paramount, the parent company of CBS, last year settled a case brought by Mr. Trump for $16 million. Other companies, including Disney and Meta, have also settled with Mr. Trump, weighing those expenses against a prolonged legal battle with the most powerful person in the world.

A spokesman for CBS had no immediate comment.
Click to expand...
It's certainly "dumbing it down" to place the reliance that you do on the the NYT to present a balanced account of anything to do with Trump! The analysis that Lukianoff offers is superficial and incorrect. A statement is not libellous only when it persuades someone of a false allegation. It is libellous even if it fails to convince anyone, or only serves to affirm what someone might already falsely believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: silentkisser
S

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
5,300
7,151
113
Dutch Oven said:
It's certainly "dumbing it down" to place the reliance that you do on the the NYT to present a balanced account of anything to do with Trump! The analysis that Lukianoff offers is superficial and incorrect. A statement is not libellous only when it persuades someone of a false allegation. It is libellous even if it fails to convince anyone, or only serves to affirm what someone might already falsely believe.
Click to expand...
Oh, I forgot you were an experience libel lawyer familiar with US law....:rolleyes:

Again, you seem to miss the entire point of Trump being a public figure. The bar is raised significantly in these scenarios, meaning anyone can say more mean things about the president than a private citizen. So, a joke like this is basically covered by the first amendment, and would be incredibly difficult to for Trump to win. And, it's been nearly a week....where is the lawsuit? I highly doubt it would ever happen. And, while you might not like the NYT because it doesn't follow your podcast's lead on spin, the reality is that they are what the vast majority of people would consider a reliable source of information.

But....at the same time, can you imagine the uproar if Biden, Obama or Clinton attempted to sue say, Kid Rock or Ted Nugent for some of the bullshit they said? I can only imagine how the right-wing media-sphere would shit a brick. They would say the Democrat president was trying to chill free speech...Its funny how these arguments are never made by Trump from all the supposed free-speech champions...
 
Dutch Oven

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,085
2,585
113
silentkisser said:
Oh, I forgot you were an experience libel lawyer familiar with US law....:rolleyes:

Again, you seem to miss the entire point of Trump being a public figure. The bar is raised significantly in these scenarios, meaning anyone can say more mean things about the president than a private citizen. So, a joke like this is basically covered by the first amendment, and would be incredibly difficult to for Trump to win. And, it's been nearly a week....where is the lawsuit? I highly doubt it would ever happen. And, while you might not like the NYT because it doesn't follow your podcast's lead on spin, the reality is that they are what the vast majority of people would consider a reliable source of information.

But....at the same time, can you imagine the uproar if Biden, Obama or Clinton attempted to sue say, Kid Rock or Ted Nugent for some of the bullshit they said? I can only imagine how the right-wing media-sphere would shit a brick. They would say the Democrat president was trying to chill free speech...Its funny how these arguments are never made by Trump from all the supposed free-speech champions...
Click to expand...
I'd like to give credit where credit is due, but I can't remember where I first heard the very apt statement that "arguing with the left is like arguing with a TV". You simply parrot what your favourite sources tell you. I haven't taken issue with the contention that there is a hurdle for a public figure like Trump to surmount. I have simply outlined the map for how that might be accomplished. Those statements undermine the "not in a million years" opinions you prefer, so that upsets you. If you are so troubled by the doubt I introduce, why don't you check to see whether I've said anything that's wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar
K

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
10,570
10,313
113
JeanGary Diablo said:
How this would effectively pan out:

TRUMP's LAWYERS: Donald Trump is suing Trevor Noah for defamation.
TREVOR NOAH'S LAWYER: OK, we're going to then need to subpoena all the remainder of the 3-million unreleased and unredacted Epstein files to make sure what he said is not true.
TRUMP's LAWYERS: Our client was just joking. He's too busy to sue him. But he could if he wanted to.
Click to expand...
Perfetto! This is exactly right, and how it's gone dozens of times in the past when Trump sues someone it never sees the courtroom nor a settlement. That's why all the capitulation from media and law firms were distressing, as they could have easily won the cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeanGary Diablo
S

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
5,300
7,151
113
Dutch Oven said:
I'd like to give credit where credit is due, but I can't remember where I first heard the very apt statement that "arguing with the left is like arguing with a TV". You simply parrot what your favourite sources tell you. I haven't taken issue with the contention that there is a hurdle for a public figure like Trump to surmount. I have simply outlined the map for how that might be accomplished. Those statements undermine the "not in a million years" opinions you prefer, so that upsets you. If you are so troubled by the doubt I introduce, why don't you check to see whether I've said anything that's wrong?
Click to expand...
First, I don't parrot my so-called favourite sources. And, even it I did, my sources are reputable and credible. I'm not quoting the Daily Wire or Buzz Feed son. And, your outline just doesn't hold water in the real world. The burden on Trump to show that it was malicious or damaging to his reputation is insurmountable. And, as we know, Trump is famous for threatening people with lawsuits, just not very good at following through.

But, arguing with the right is like arguing with a wall. They don't really give any facts or well thought out arguments, but also don't seem to move when confronted with these things...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter
Dutch Oven

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,085
2,585
113
silentkisser said:
First, I don't parrot my so-called favourite sources. And, even it I did, my sources are reputable and credible. I'm not quoting the Daily Wire or Buzz Feed son. And, your outline just doesn't hold water in the real world. The burden on Trump to show that it was malicious or damaging to his reputation is insurmountable. And, as we know, Trump is famous for threatening people with lawsuits, just not very good at following through.

But, arguing with the right is like arguing with a wall. They don't really give any facts or well thought out arguments, but also don't seem to move when confronted with these things...
Click to expand...
Clearly, your only way of understanding the world around you is pattern recognition. The problem is that you aren't very good at placing pieces into the puzzle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom