Melania Trump speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18. Credit: Ron Sachs / CNP
Melania Trump speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18. Credit: Ron Sachs / CNP
Apologizing won’t get you anywhere with Melania Trump.
At least that’s how it looks in the wake of a fresh libel lawsuit against the UK’s Daily Mail and a Maryland blogger over articles referencing rumors that Republican presidential candidate’s wife was a sex worker in the 1990s.
Melania Trump sued the two outlets on Thursday for a combined $150 million despite the fact that they yanked down the offending articles roughly a week ago. She isrepresented by L.A. litigator Charles Harder, who gained fame for suing Gawker Media on behalf of former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan. Trump’s suit, filed in state court in Maryland, comes after Harder fired off a warning shot in August to a number of media outlets including Politico and The Guardian.
Blogger Webster Tarpley, who runs Tarpley.net, posted a retraction on Aug. 22 after receiving a warning letter. He also apologized for “any duress and harm [Trump] may have endured” as a result of his Aug. 2 post, which said that she was “reportedly obsessed by fear of salacious revelations by wealthy clients from her time as a high-end escort.”
The Daily Mail, according to the complaint, on Aug. 26 removed an Aug. 19 article referring to a book written by a Slovenian journalist, which alleged that Trump worked in “something like a gentleman’s club” when she lived in Milan. (The newspaper also published a retraction on Thursday.)
All of that was to no avail. The lawsuit says the articles damaged Trump’s “good name and reputation as a prominent woman in American business, politics and fashion.”
Stunning though the monetary demand may be, media lawyers say the fact that the media outlets pulled the stories down so quickly could significantly diminish any award, even if a jury were to find that the outlets had committed libel.
“In the age of the internet, stories pop up very quickly and they get tamped down very quickly if there’s reason for them to be discredited. And the damages aren’t what they used to be when you had an article published in the newspaper and days would go by” before a correction was run, said Thomas Kelley, a partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, the firm that defended Gawker.
There’s also a high hurdle for libel cases brought by public figures, Kelley said. Clearing that hurdle typically means proving that there was no basis whatsoever for reporting the controversial claims, and that the reporter did not attempt to put them in context or provide balance.
Kelley also said the suit was probably intended to serve as a warning to other media outlets.
“This may not be the last incendiary allegation that comes out of the woodwork,” he said of the escort rumor. “And I’m sure that the Trump campaign would like to make it well known that this is how they’re going to respond.”
Harder did not respond to a phone call on Thursday.
Karl Olson, a media lawyer at Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopcyznski in San Francisco, saw the move as reflective of Donald Trump’s overall attitude toward the media throughout his presidential campaign.
“My general perspective on Trump is he has a long history of trying to intimidate the press and a long history of having incredibly thin skin, which is kind of amazing for somebody that wants to be the president of the United States,” Olson said. “His feelings about the press are kind of more aligned with Vladirmir Putin.”
Tarpley, in a defiant statement, called the suit “a blatant attempt to intimidate not only me but journalists of all stripes into remaining silent with regard to public figures. This lawsuit is a direct affront to First Amendment principles and free speech in our democratic society.”
Ben Hancock can be reached at bhancock@alm.com. On Twitter: @benghancock