A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former U.S. president, Donald Trump, against CNN. Trump claimed that referring to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election as “the Big Lie” was equivalent to comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
In the lawsuit, Trump sought $475 million in punitive damages, alleging that the references had damaged his reputation and political career. As a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, this was Trump’s third run for the presidency.
The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, who was appointed by Trump, stated that the defamation claims failed because the references were opinions, not factual statements. The judge also stated that it was unlikely viewers would connect the phrase to Nazi propaganda or Hitler’s regime.
“CNN’s use of the phrase ‘the Big Lie’ in connection with Trump’s election challenges does not suggest that Trump advocates persecution or genocide,” wrote the judge.
Emails seeking comment were sent to Trump’s attorneys in South Florida and Washington, as well as CNN attorneys in Atlanta and South Florida.
Perspective: The dismissal of Donald Trump’s lawsuit against CNN highlights the importance of opinions versus factual statements in defamation cases. It underlines the need for a clear distinction between personal opinions and defamatory claims to protect freedom of expression and the press. This decision adds to the ongoing debate over the limits of defamation law in an era of polarized politics and media.
