On Monday’sTucker Carlson Tonight, Kyle Rittenhouse unveiled The Media Accountability Project, a new group dedicated to creating consequences for those who spread defamatory lies about the young man acquitted of murder charges last fall. Rittenhouse said that he and his attorneys plan to sue a host of politicians, journalists, and celebrities for their dishonest attacks on his character.
A jury of Rittenhouse’s peers on November 19 found him innocent by way of self-defense in three shootings, two fatal, during Left-wing riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Since then, many have lied about Rittenhouse and the deadly incident in which he was involved. News anchors and Democrat politicians called him a murderer, a white supremacist, a terrorist, and falsely accused him of assorted barbarities. To many who have avoided defamation, this case is a no brainer: “Sue the living pants off these liars. It’s a cut-and-dried case!”
Sadly, it’s not that simple. Defamation actions are among the hardest lawsuits to win, and they are laden with caveats. As someone who has been defamed and lied about by numerous Left-wing organizations, politicians, and media personalities, I learned this the hard way. To be clear, the defamation that Rittenhouse endured was lightyears worse than what I faced. The lies spread about him also generated much more terrifying consequences.
I have written extensively about my circumstances here and here. After the initial attacks against me proved baseless, I totally was exonerated of any wrongdoing.
Even so, that did not prevent the reputational damage that the Left’s lies inflicted on me. ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel used my name and image on air. He said that my perfectly lawful promotion of GOP ballot-collection boxes was illegal. Kimmel incited violence against me when he said that I should be stuffed inside such a container. Kimmel added: “Make no mistake about it, these people will stop at nothing to steal your vote.” No surprise, the hate and death threats against me increased after this incident.
Recommended
John Iadarola and Francesca Fiorentini spent much of an October 2020 episode of The Damage Report on YouTube defaming me as a criminal and demanding my imprisonment.
One episode of YouTube’s Roland Martin Unfiltered opened with my name and face. He accused me of election fraud.
These are just a few examples of many egregious statements based on a lie. Thankfully, exculpatory facts soon emerged:
- The ballot-collection method was not my idea; it was a project of my then-employer, the California Republican Party.
- This technique is completely legal in the Golden State.
- California Democrats also collected ballots.
- The GOP won every legal action related to this case.
- California’s then-attorney general, Xavier Becerra, eventually admitted that Republicans did not break any laws.
Once the truth was out, I was completely vindicated. The media’s sinister statements against me indisputably were lies.
My friends and loved ones urged me to lawyer up and sue for defamation. I was poised to strike back. I retained seasoned and talented attorneys. I was extremely confident that I would reap justice as those who lied about me endured the reckoning that they deserved.
It wasn’t so simple.
There are many facets to defamation. When someone spreads a falsehood that damages one’s reputation, that is actionable. But there are ample hurdles to leap once litigation begins.
Many declarations, even blatant lies, can be considered opinions. Even in a close call, a court could decide that a blatant lie, spewed with malice, is merely an opinion. Jimmy Kimmel stood before millions of TV viewers, broadcast misinformation about, and incited violence against me -- a virtual no name. Nonetheless, Kimmel could be tough to sue because he can hide behind the fact that he’s a comedian. Never mind that his monologue’s harsh tone and statements were not expressed in a joking manner.
As I repeatedly learned, defamation defendants often deploy a legal doctrine called “anti-slapp.” In short, if you sue for defamation and lose, you must pay the accused defamer’s legal bills.
In my case, if judges considered lies about me as mere “opinions,” then I – a graduate student – could wind up paying the legal bills for Jimmy Kimmel, Roland Martin, John Iadrolla, and the media conglomerates who aired their lies.
Another palpable risk was the fact that my case unfolded in California, arguably America’s most Leftist state. Rife with liberal judges and short on reliable, relevant precedents to guide them, the entire matter became a crapshoot worthy of Caesar’s Palace.
Rittenhouse and his attorneys will have to consider the current legal precedents. The lies spread about him were more severe and ubiquitous than what I suffered. Many public figures, including President Joe Biden, defamed him. While each case differs, many of these lies that harmed him could be considered protected speech. Alas, many who made these ugly remarks likely would escape justice.
Rittenhouse’s fate might parallel that of Nicholas Sandmann. Prominent Leftists and media figures viciously attacked him and his fellow Covington High schoolmates as MAGA-hat wearing white supremacists who humiliated a lone American Indian at the Lincoln Memorial. In fact, activist Nathan Phillips confronted Sandmann and banged a drum in his face as he just stood there and smiled faintly.
Sandmann sued CNN, NBC News, and the Washington Post for their pure fabrications that he was a teen racist who physically blocked Phillips. All three media giants settled out of court for undisclosed sums. While Sandmann’s suit against CNN demanded $275 million, he most likely collected far less. Some legal experts have speculated to me that he collected as little as $35,000. Defamation victories are rare, often small, and far less excruciating than plaintiffs would like. Such a dissatisfying fate might await Rittenhouse.
I hope I am wrong. Rittenhouse deserves millions for the torture that he suffered at the hands of the villainous liberal media. Those who defamed him owe him justice and deserve financial pain. Wanting this and achieving it can be two different things, thanks to the relevant legal rules and practices.
Winning defamation suits is difficult, in part, to protect free speech. Making it tough for powerful politicians, dominant corporations, and wealthy individuals to succeed in defamation litigation is supposed to shield journalists from those who would love to unplug them and their unflattering coverage. But in a perverse sense of justice, these elites scurry behind these legal conventions as they spew lies about unknown everyday people without media millions to defend themselves.
Plenty about defamation law demands change -- too much for one op-ed. Lawmakers and courts should consider serious reforms: The ability to sue and collect for defamation should be easier for those without the media presence to defend themselves. Unlike Biden and CNN, Rittenhouse and Sandman lack the megaphones to fight back. I likewise had no megaphone to defend myself against Jimmy Kimmel and ABC.
Left or Right, Americans should agree that journalism’s twin engines should be truth and integrity. If news organizations suffered severe financial consequences for spreading lies about obscure people, they actually might report fairly and honestly. The media could serve America and the world far better by telling the truth.
To support The Media Accountability Project and Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawsuits against those who trafficked lies about him, please donate at TMAP.org.
Jordan Tygh is a United States CoastGuard veteran and former GOP operative. He is a graduate student at the University of Miami.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member