Donald Trump:“I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else…”

Donald Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, after the newspaper reported that he had sent child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a salacious letter on Epstein’s fiftieth birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, and is seeking an extraordinary $20 billion in damages. In a front-page story on 18th July, The Wall Street Journal revealed the existence of an album compiled in 2003 by Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — who is also a child sex offender — containing letters and cards from Epstein’s friends, including Trump.

In his letter to Epstein, Trump wrote: “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” The text is enclosed within a drawing of the outline of a nude woman, and Trump signed the letter in the position where the woman’s pubic hair would be. A thick marker pen, Trump’s preferred type, was used for the drawing and signature.

Trump, like Prince Andrew, was a close associate of Epstein’s who attempted to distance himself once Epstein’s crimes were revealed. He is currently trying to deflect attention away from Epstein, though this lawsuit will have the opposite effect. The WSJ article — written by Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, and headlined “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album” — includes denials by Trump, and quotes him as saying: “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else”.

Safdar and Palazzolo are named in Trump’s lawsuit, as is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the proprietor of the WSJ. Trump posted on Truth Social on 18th July: “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But now he has, and I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper.” Trump is seeking $10 billion in damages for defamation per se, and a further $10 billion for defamation per quod (that is, implicit defamation).

Murdoch has a chequered history with Trump, as does the Journal. In an editorial at the beginning of the year, the newspaper called Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada “The Dumbest Trade War in History”. Rather than backing down since the lawsuit was issued, the Journal today printed a potentially even more damaging revelation: that Trump was told by his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, in May “that his name was in the Epstein files”.

In US defamation cases involving public figures, proof of ‘actual malice’ (deliberate dishonesty) is required. By quoting Trump’s denial, and by describing the letter as “bearing Trump’s name” rather than directly stating that Trump wrote it, the Journal’s report demonstrates due diligence rather than malice. The obvious authenticity of the album containing the letter is also a strong indication that the Journal was not guilty of deception.

But there is also another potentially fatal flaw in Trump’s case: the lawsuit was filed at the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida, and Florida law states that a defamation suit can only be filed five or more days after giving notice to the defendant (i.e., the Journal). Trump claims that he spoke to the newspaper on 15th July, which was only three days before he filed his lawsuit. This alone would be sufficient grounds for a judge to dismiss the case.

Trump’s lawyers are presumably aware of this five-day requirement, and of the fact that a defamation trial would expose embarrassing details of Trump’s past friendship with Epstein. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that this is merely a performative or vexatious lawsuit, and that Trump has no intention of proceeding to trial.

Earlier this month, CBS settled a Trump lawsuit, after he sued them for editing a Kamala Harris interview. ABC News also agreed to a settlement, after Trump sued them for libel last year. Trump has sued numerous other media figures and news organisations, including Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Bob Woodward, The New York Times, and CNN.

These lawsuits were all filed either while Trump was out of office, or before he entered politics. Therefore, his lawsuit against the WSJ is the first time that a sitting American president has ever sued a media organisation.

Gavin Newsom: “See you in court, buddy...”

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, is suing Fox News host Jesse Watters for defamation, after Watters accused him of lying about a phone call with President Donald Trump. Newsom is seeking $787 million in damages, the same amount that Fox paid to settle the Dominion Voting System defamation case in 2023.

Newsom’s lawsuit, filed on 27th June, accuses Fox News of “disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda”. In a statement, Fox rejected what it described as Newsom’s “transparent publicity stunt”.

On 10th June, Trump claimed to have spoken to Newsom by phone “a day ago”, though Newsom denied this. On his Primetime show that evening, Watters said: “Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” A chyron on screen read: “GAVIN LIED ABOUT TRUMP’S CALL”.

On 17th July, Watters made an on-air apology to Newsom: “He didn’t deceive anybody on purpose, so I’m sorry. He wasn’t lying.” In reply, Newsom issued a statement saying simply: “See you in court, buddy.”

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

As expected, actor and director Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has been dismissed, after judge Lewis Liman concluded that the NYT’s coverage of Blake Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment against him was not biased. The judge wrote: “the Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened. The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”

Baldoni had been seeking $250 million in libel damages from the NYT, after it published details of Lively’s complaints against him. But it reported Lively’s claims accurately, based on court documents, so Baldoni’s lawsuit was bound to fail: whether her allegations were true or not, it’s not libellous to report them. (Baldoni filed his legal action sixty years after a 1964 Supreme Court decision required proof of ‘actual malice’ in libel lawsuits against public figures, in a case that also involved the NYT.)

“Salacious and defamatory accusations...”

Music producer Russell Simmons has filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO and the makers of the documentary On the Record, which features interviews with women who have accused him of sexual assault. He is seeking $20 million in damages.

On the Record (directed by Kirby Dick and Amy Zieling) premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 25th January 2020, and was released on the HBO Max streaming platform later that year (on 27th May). The lawsuit describes the documentary as “a film that tremendously disparaged and damaged Mr. Simmons with salacious and defamatory accusations”.

Simmons is one of three disgraced figures from the music industry currently suing filmmakers who have exposed accusations of sexual misconduct, and all three men stand very little chance of winning their libel cases. Chris Brown filed a libel lawsuit in January, as did Sean Combs. Combs, better known as Diddy and Puff Daddy, has since filed another libel lawsuit: he is seeking $100 million in damages over allegations of sexual assault in the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy, which was released on NBC’s Peacock streaming service on 14th January.

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

A high-profile celebrity lawsuit was dismissed yesterday after Blake Lively withdrew her claims of emotional distress against Justin Baldoni, her co-star in the film It Ends with Us. Lively had filed a suit against Baldoni, who also directed the film, on 20th December last year, and the document was immediately leaked to the The New York Times, which published a lengthy article about the case on its website the following day.

The article, headlined “Alleged Effort To Strike Back At Star Actress”, appeared in the NYT’s print edition on 23rd December. It included extracts from text messages sent between publicists Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, suggesting that they were attempting to smear Lively and protect Baldoni’s reputation. One message, sent by Nathan, said: “You know we can bury anyone”. (This was used as the article’s online headline.) The article included a disclaimer that “messages have been edited for length”, and Baldoni sued the newspaper on New Year’s Eve arguing that the messages had been “stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead”.

Lively’s claims against Baldoni, which included extensive allegations of sexual harassment, were criticised on social media, in the same way that Amber Heard’s reputation was trashed online after her allegations against Johnny Depp. Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against the NYT, seeking $250 million in damages, is unlikely to proceed to trial: on 4th March, judge Lewis Liman noted that the newspaper had demonstrated “substantial grounds for dismissal”, and that “its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits.”

SpotlightSpy in the IRA

A jury at the High Court in Dublin has awarded Gerry Adams €100,000 in damages after a month-long libel trial. Adams had sued the BBC over its documentary Spy in the IRA, in which an anonymous source — identified only by the first name Martin — accused Adams of authorising the IRA’s killing of Denis Donaldson in 2006.

In the programme, reporter Jennifer O’Leary said: “Martin believes that the shooting of Denis Donaldson was sanctioned by the man at the top of the republican movement, Gerry Adams.” When O’Leary asked Martin, “Who are you specifically referring to?”, he answered: “Gerry Adams. He gives the final say.” The programme followed this reply with a disclaimer stating that Adams insisted he “had no knowledge of, and no involvement whatsoever, in Denis Donaldson’s killing.”

Spy in the IRA, an episode in the investigative series Spotlight, was broadcast on 20th September 2016 on BBC1 in Northern Ireland, and repeated on BBC2 in Northern Ireland the following day. During the libel trial, O’Leary testified that she had corroborated Martin’s claim with five other sources — this suggests responsible, well-informed journalism, not bias. When he gave evidence at the trial, Adams denied under oath ever having been a member of the IRA, though his status as a former senior IRA leader is common knowledge among journalists and historians.

It’s conceivable that some members of the jury were from generations who came of age after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and have no personal recollection of the era known as ‘the Troubles’, during which Adams was certainly not regarded as a peacemaker. Also, it’s highly likely that Adams benefited from his decision to bring the case in the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland, to ensure a more sympathetic jury.

Another alleged former IRA member has also launched a libel suit in relation to a different unsolved murder. Marian Price is suing the makers of the TV series Say Nothing, a dramatisation of the IRA’s 1972 abduction and killing of Jean McConville. Although noone has been convicted of McConville’s murder, the drama shows her being shot by Price.

The shooting takes place in Say Nothing’s final episode, titled The People in the Dirt, directed by Michael Lennox. The episode ends with a written disclaimer stating that Price “denies any involvement in the murder of Jean McConville.” The series was released on the Hulu and Disney+ streaming services on 14th November last year.

“Publishers are not liable for honest mistakes...”

A jury has found that The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin when it published an editorial on 14th June 2017. Palin had sued the newspaper for libel over a sentence in the editorial falsely implying that her campaign had encouraged the 2011 shooting of fellow politician Gabby Giffords: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The newspaper had swiftly apologised for the editorial — “We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords” — and inserted a clarification into the online version of the article the day after its original publication: “no connection to the shooting was ever established.” The initial libel case ended on 15th February 2022, when a jury concluded that the editorial was not defamatory.

Palin appealed against that verdict, and she was granted a retrial on 28th August last year. Yesterday, the week-long retrial ended with a different jury reaching the same conclusion, that the newspaper did not intentionally defame Palin. After yesterday’s verdict, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: “The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”

Last Week Tonight

Dr Brian Morley, former director of US private healthcare contractor AmeriHealth Caritas, has filed a $75,000 defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, host of the HBO comedy show Last Week Tonight. In a segment about Medicaid broadcast on 14th April last year, Oliver quoted Morley’s justification for reducing personal care support for a disabled man in Iowa who needed diapers: “I would allow him to be a little dirty for a couple of days.”

Morley’s lawsuit, filed on 28th March at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the quote was taken out of context. However, in the segment, Oliver preemptively addressed this point: “when I first heard that, I thought that has to be taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licenced physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it’s okay if people have shit on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I’m not going to play it for you, I’m just going to tell you: he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall.”

Oliver then responded to Morley’s quote directly: “I guess I’d say fuck that doctor with a rusty canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls. And if he has a problem with my language there, I’d say I’m allowed to be dirty. People are allowed to be a little dirty sometimes, apparently that’s doctor’s fucking orders.”

The show was previously sued for libel by Bob Murray, CEO of coal company Murray Energy, in relation to a segment broadcast on 18th June 2017. That lawsuit, filed on 10th October 2017, stated: “The statements that the plaintiffs alleged were defamatory included statements indicating that Mr. Murray had no evidence to support his assertion that an earthquake caused a mine collapse that killed nine people; a statement that Mr. Murray and Murray Energy “appear to be on the same side as black lung” and that their position on a coal dust regulation was the equivalent of rooting for bees to kill a child”.

Murray also argued that Oliver’s description of him as “a geriatric Dr Evil” was defamatory. The case was dismissed on 21st February 2018.

Naya Bharat (‘new India’)

Indian comedian Kunal Kamra is the subject of a police investigation in the state of Maharashtra after he criticised a politician from the region in his stand-up show Naya Bharat (‘new India’). Kamra performed a few satirical songs during the set, and they appeared with karaoke-style subtitles when he uploaded a video of the show to his YouTube channel on 23rd March. He was charged with defamation on the following day.

The lyrics to one song, a parody of the theme to the Bollywood film Dil To Pagal Hai (‘the heart is crazy’), include the word ‘gaddar’ (‘traitor’), in an oblique reference to politician Eknath Shinde. After footage of the performance circulated online, a mob of Shinde’s supporters ransacked The Habitat, the Mumbai studio where Kamra had recorded the live show. A spokesperson for Shinde’s political party Shiv Sena has called for Kamra’s arrest.

The Habitat was also the venue for another controversial comedy last month, when an episode of the podcast India’s Got Latent was recorded there. A guest on the show, Ranveer Allahbadia, asked a contestant: “Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life, or would you join in once and stop it forever?” The episode was released on YouTube on 10th February, and multiple police complaints were filed against Allahbadia. India’s Supreme Court described Allahbadia’s question as obscene on 18th February, though it stopped short of filing criminal charges against him.

In a similar case in 2021, Ashutosh Dubey, an adviser to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, filed a legal complaint against comedian Vir Das in relation to a live performance in Washington D.C. Das recited his poem Two Indias at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on 12th November 2021, and uploaded it to YouTube four days later. As he predicted in the words of the poem itself, “I come from an India that will accuse me of airing our dirty laundry”.

The Critics

Yesterday, a female news anchor was questioned by police on charges of defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act, following a legal complaint by a lawyer representing former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Her home was searched by more than a dozen police officers, though she has not yet been arrested.

The online news organisation The Critics published a video on 3rd January reporting on an opinion poll in which Thaksin had been voted the world’s worst leader. (The video is still online, on the Thai Move Institute’s YouTube channel.) The anchor told police that she was not the journalist who wrote the story, and had merely been reading from a script.

The news report (which is essentially clickbait) refers to a survey on the website The Top Tens. Thaksin is indeed currently listed there as the worst leader in the history of the world, with Adolf Hitler in second place, though the voting has been manipulated by Thai netizens. (Thaksin’s entry has more than 6,000 vitriolic comments, from people who apparently believe that he was worse than genocidal dictators such as Hitler.)

There are equally hyperbolic comparisons between Thaksin and Hitler in two documentaries by Ing K. In the fourth episode of her Bangkok Joyride (บางกอกจอยไรด์) series, a protester describes Thaksin as “worse than Hitler”. This echoes a quote from Ing’s Citizen Juling (พลเมืองจูหลิง): “We talk of Hitler... But villagers, all citizens nowadays fear PM Thaksin 10 times more.” (These examples are discussed in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

During Thaksin’s premiership, he was notorious for his use of lawsuits to intimidate his critics. Pimpaka Towira’s documentary The Truth Be Told (ความจริงพูดได้), for example, examined the charges filed by Thaksin’s Shin Corp. against media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong after she was interviewed by the Thai Post (ไทยโพสต์) newspaper on 16th July 2003. (The Thai Post was also named in the writ. This case is also covered in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

Supinya had alleged that Shin Corp. benefitted from the policies of Thaksin’s government, and therefore that his ownership of the company represented a conflict of interest. Her book about the lawsuit, พูดความจริง (‘speak the truth’), was published in 2007, after the case was dismissed.

Flowers in the Rain:The Untold Story of The Move

Jim McCarthy covers the history of the 1960s psychedelic rock band The Move in his new book Flowers in the Rain: The Untold Story of The Move, including the libel case brought against the band by former UK prime minister Harold Wilson in 1967. To promote their single Flowers in the Rain, the band’s manager Tony Secunda commissioned Neil Smith to draw a caricature of Wilson in bed with his secretary, Marcia Williams, implying that they were having an affair. Secunda sent copies of the drawing on 500 postcards to newspapers, magazines, and radio stations, though the stunt quickly backfired when Wilson sued for defamation. Wilson won the case on 11th October 1967, and was awarded all royalties from the single in perpetuity (which he donated to charity).

Significantly, McCarthy’s book — an exhaustive history of the band — includes an illustration of the postcard, which is perhaps the first time it has appeared in print in more than fifty years. (It was previously reproduced on p. 22 of the very first issue of Rolling Stone, on 9th November 1967.) McCarthy’s book was published in November 2024, and less than two months later, the postcard was also reproduced in The Oldie magazine’s January issue (no. 447, p. 62). Being a US magazine, Rolling Stone wasn’t affected by UK libel law, and as Wilson and Williams are both now deceased, there is no longer a restriction on publication of the postcard in the UK.

“All-you-can-eat buffet of wild lies...”

This week, two disgraced rap stars have filed defamation lawsuits after being accused of abusive behaviour. Chris Brown sued Warner Bros. on 21st January, and Sean Combs sued Nexstar Media a day later. The separate lawsuits were filed almost simultaneously, and coincidentally the TV programmes they target were also broadcast within days of each other.

The documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence was first shown on the US cable TV channel Investigation Discovery (owned by Warner Bros.) on 27th October 2024. Brown is seeking $500 million in damages.

In a 31st October 2024 interview on the NewsMax cable TV show Banfield, Courtney Burgess claimed to have seen video evidence of abuse by Combs. (The interview is still online on the Newsmax YouTube channel.) Combs is suing Burgess and the owners of Newsmax, Nexstar; his lawsuit calls the interview an “all-you-can-eat buffet of wild lies”.

“The term ‘black market’ in the story was in error...”

A US Navy veteran has won a defamation lawsuit against CNN. Zachary Young sued the network in 2022, and a jury found in his favour yesterday, awarding him $5 million in damages.

Young was hired by large corporations to help evacuate their employees from Afghanistan amid the chaos following the American military withdrawal from the country. CNN’s Alexander Marquardt investigated claims of evacuation payments in a report broadcast on The Lead on 11th November 2021.

A chyron in the TV report stated that Afghan individuals trying to leave the country “FACE BLACK MARKETS, EXORBITANT FEES”, and Young was the only person named in connection with the allegations. Young denied seeking payment from individuals, and argued that CNN falsely accused him of illegally exploiting those seeking to escape the country.

Once Young filed his lawsuit, CNN broadcast an apology on 25th March 2022: “the use of the term ‘black market’ in the story was in error... We didn’t mean to suggest that Mr Young participated in the black market.”

Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, and The Fight of His Life by Chris Whipple, both discuss Joe Biden’s decision to pull US troops out of Afghanistan. The Last Politician by Franklin Foer covers the logistics of the Afghan evacuation itself.

“ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump...”

ABC News has agreed to pay Donald Trump $15 million in an out-of-court settlement, after he sued the organisation for defamation earlier this year. Trump filed a lawsuit against ABC News and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos, when Stephanopoulos asked Republican politician Nancy Mace on air why she had endorsed Trump as a presidential candidate despite Trump having been “found liable for rape.”

Stephanopoulos interviewed Mace on This Week, in a segment broadcast on 10th March. He began the interview with a reference to a civil prosecution in which Trump was found guilty of sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll: “You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape. It’s been affirmed by a judge.”

Mace, who is herself a rape victim, stated that she found the premise of the interview “disgusting.” Stephanopoulos again asked her to justify her endorsement of Trump: “I’m asking a question about why you endorsed someone who’s been found liable for rape.” Mace accused Stephanopoulos of victim-shaming her, and Stephanopoulos attempted to clarify: “I’m questioning your political choices, because you’re supporting someone who’s been found liable for rape.”

Stephanopoulos then pressed Mace again to answer his initial question: “why are you supporting someone who’s been found liable for rape?” She replied that the question was offensive, to which Stephanopoulos responded: “You don’t find it offensive that Donald Trump has been found liable for rape?”

Trump’s libel claim hinged on the fact that he was convicted of sexually assaulting Carroll, rather than raping her. His lawsuit quoted Stephanopoulos on previous broadcasts referring to sexual assault, in an attempt to prove that Stephanopoulos was aware of the distinction and had used the word ‘rape’ in the combative Mace interview either recklessly or maliciously.

Trump also sued Carroll for the same reason, after she accused him of rape despite the sexual assault conviction. That lawsuit was dismissed, however, as the judge in the sexual assault case issued a written clarification: “that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

The previous references by Stephanopoulos to sexual assault were all made before 19th July 2023, when the clarification was published. His comments in the Mace interview, however, were made afterwards, so it could reasonably be argued that he was using the term ‘rape’ “as many people commonly understand the word”, as per the judge’s clarification. Nevertheless, ABC settled the case yesterday and issued a cursory statement: “ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace”.

Sarit Thanarat

Sarit Thanarat, military prime minister during the Cold War, died in December 1963. After his death, the floodgates opened, and exposés of his love life were rushed into print. His lovenest was a private residence nicknamed the ‘pink palace’ (วิมานสีชมพู), and this was the title of a Sarit biography published in 1964, which included a dossier of photographs of Sarit’s alleged lovers. Several erotic novels of the period, including แม่ม่ายผ้าขะม้าแดง (‘red-headed widow’), were also thinly-veiled portrayals of Sarit’s mistresses.

Almost fifty years later, the phrase ‘pink palace’ was censored by Channel 3 when it broadcast the lakorn คุณชายพุฒิภัทร (‘khun Chai Puttipat’) on 5th May 2013. In the third episode, a former military general played by Montree Jenuksorn (who slightly resembles Sarit) discussed his ‘pink palace’, though the sound was muted, presumably to avoid any possibility of a libel suit from Sarit’s descendents. (The novel on which the drama was based refers to Sarit more obliquely.)

Potential defamation also prevented director Banjong Kosallawat from making a planned Sarit biopic in 2002, which was to have been titled จอมพล (‘marshal’). Sarit did feature briefly in the horror movie Zee Oui (ซี-อุย), ordering the swift execution of the murderous title character for political expediency. And Sarit’s statue looms ominously over the characters in Song of the City, Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s segment of the portmanteau film Ten Years Thailand.

After Sarit led a coup in 1957, he was portrayed as a hero by pliant newspaper cartoonists. One example of such propaganda showed Sarit cradling a rescued child in his arms, returning the boy (who represents the Thai people) to his grateful mother. In contrast, a July 1958 cartoon in the liberal ประชาชน (‘people’) newspaper depicted Sarit as a monkey wrapping his tail possessively around Democracy Monument. Sixty years later, in the wake of the 2014 coup, Sarit satire was too sensitive, and the Guerrilla Boys self-censored their mural Junta Connection (วิ่งผลัดเผด็จการ), which originally depicted Sarit passing his (literal) baton of dictatorship to Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Art and Culture (ศิลปวัฒนธรรม) magazine analysed cartoonists’ caricatures of Sarit (vol. 43, no. 1), and the journal Same Sky (ฟ้าเดียวกัน) examined the lurid books published shortly after his death (vol. 20, no. 2). Thai Cinema Uncensored discusses the portrayal of Sarit in Thai films.

Priyanandana Rangsit v. Nattapoll Chaiching

The Civil Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed in 2021 by the aristocrat Priyanandana Rangsit against the historian Nattapoll Chaiching and his publisher, Same Sky Books. Nattapoll is the author of the bestselling ขุนศึก ศักดินา และพญาอินทรี (‘feudal warlords and the eagle’). His earlier book ขอฝันใฝ่ในฝันอันเหลือเชื่อ (‘I dream an incredible dream’) also saw a revival in sales after it was among five titles seized by police from the offices of Same Sky.

On 5th March 2021, aristocrat Priyanandana Rangsit sued Nattapoll and Same Sky for defamation, seeking ฿50 million in damages. According to the lawsuit, Nattapoll’s books incorrectly assert that her grandfather, Prince Rangsit Prayurasakdi, sought an improper political influence over Phibun Songkhram’s government in the 1940s. She argued that this allegation about her long-dead ancestor tarnished her family name, and was thus defamatory to her personally.

Yesterday, the court came to the obvious conclusion that Prince Rangsit, having died in 1951, was not affected by the content of Nattapoll’s books. In the court’s judgement, Priyanandana’s legal case was therefore invalid from the beginning. This ruling is hardly surprising, though more questionable is the fact that it took almost four years for such a spurious case to be dismissed.

Central Park Five

Donald Trump is being sued for libel by the men known as the Central Park Five, whose convictions for rape and attempted murder were overturned in 2002. Their joint defamation lawsuit, filed yesterday, seeks at least $75,000 in damages.

The five men, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown, and Korey Wise, were accused of attacking Trisha Meili in New York’s Central Park on 19th April 1989. They made videotaped confessions, though they later pleaded not guilty. Their confessions were later deemed to have been coerced by the NYPD.

Speaking during a debate with fellow presidential candidate Kamala Harris on 10th September, in a live broadcast on ABC News, Trump incorrectly stated that the five men “pled guilty.” He also falsely claimed that they “killed a person ultimately”.

Trump was successfully sued for libel last year by E. Jean Carroll. However, Trump’s own libel suits — filed against Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Bob Woodward, The New York Times, ABC, and CNN — have all been unsuccessful.

Prawit Wongsuwon:“Give me a chance to be the number one...”

Prawit Wongsuwon, leader of the Palang Pracharath Party, has pressed criminal charges against a TV presenter in relation to leaked audio clips that were broadcast on Channel 9 last week. The charges were filed at Huamak police station yesterday on Prawit’s behalf by Palang Pracharath secretary-general Paiboon Nititawan.

Danai Ekmahasawat played four clips, all featuring a man who sounded like Prawit, on his Inside Thailand (เจาะลึกทั่วไทย) show on 11th September, and a fifth clip two days later. In the first recording, the man says: “I’ve been a deputy and worked for the Prime Minister for a long time. I’ve made many accomplishments, and now I want the people to give me a chance to be the number one.” (Prawit was deputy PM under Prayut Chan-o-cha for nine years; his party was excluded from the governing coalition last month.)

When the clips were broadcast, Palang Pracharath initially dismissed them as AI deepfakes, though the charges filed yesterday seem to be a tacit admission that they are genuine. Prawit is suing for defamation and illegal distribution of a wiretapped recording, though only the “give me a chance to be the number one” conversation is cited in the police complaint.

Baby Reindeer

Fiona Harvey is suing Netflix for defamation, and seeking $170 million in damages, after its drama series Baby Reindeer portrayed her as a convicted stalker. Netflix claims that the show, released on 11th April, is a true story, which Harvey’s lawsuit describes as “the biggest lie in television history.”

Baby Reindeer is based on writer Richard Gadd’s experiences of being harassed by Harvey. Her name was changed — to Martha Scott — and her character is eventually convicted of stalking Gadd amongst others, though Harvey insists that, in real life, she has not been found guilty of a criminal offence. In a statement, she said: “I have never been charged with any crime, let alone been convicted, still less pleaded guilty and of course I have never been to prison for anything.”

“Odey has got away with assaulting and harassing women...”

Hedge fund manager Crispin Odey has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Financial Times newspaper, almost a year after it accused him of sexually assaulting and harassing thirteen women who had worked with him. Odey’s libel suit was filed at the High Court in London today, and he denies all the allegations made against him.

The FT published its investigation into Odey on 10th June last year, as the cover story of its FT Weekend Magazine supplement (no. 1,026). The magazine’s stark headline read: “Crispin Odey has got away with assaulting and harassing women for 25 years”. The article, titled “THE GAMBLER” (pp. 18–25), was written by Madison Marriage, Antonia Cundy, and Paul Caruana Galizia.