|
In
a ruling late on Friday night, U.S. Judge Raag Singhal, who was
nominated by Trump in 2019, said CNN's words were opinion, not
fact, and therefore could not be the subject of a defamation
claim.
"CNN's statements while repugnant, were not, as a matter of law,
defamatory," wrote Singhal, who sits in federal court in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, near Trump's home at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
In a statement, a Trump spokesperson said: "We agree with the
highly respected judge's findings that CNN's statements about
President Trump are repugnant. CNN will be held responsible for
their wrongful mistreatment of President Trump and his
supporters."
The statement did not say whether Trump would appeal the
decision.
The lawsuit, which was filed in October 2022, highlighted five
instances in which CNN either published stories or aired
comments referring to Trump's assertions about the 2020 election
as his "big lie." The phrase is also associated with the Nazi
regime's use of propaganda.
The wording, the lawsuit said, constituted "a deliberate effort
by CNN to propagate to its audience an association between the
plaintiff and one of the most repugnant figures in modern
history."
But the mere use of the phrase "big lie" is not enough to give
rise to a true connotation, Singhal wrote.
"No reasonable viewer could (or should) plausibly make that
reference," he said.
Since launching his first presidential campaign in 2015, Trump
has often attacked media outlets whose coverage he dislikes,
with CNN a favorite target.
Trump is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential
nomination, despite facing both state and federal indictments.
(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Sandra Maler and Deepa
Babington)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2022 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|
