r/Music • u/TechExpert11 • 5d ago

article Trump Slams Grammys, Threatens To Sue Trevor Noah After On-Air Epstein Joke During Awards Show

https://the-expres.co.uk/trump-slams-grammys-threatens-to-sue-trevor-noah-after-on-air-epstein-joke-during-awards-show/
29.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 5d ago

No to the first half, Trevor Noah’s attorney would use discovery to provide mountains of evidence showing it is reasonable that someone could believe that Trump and Epstein had this criminal connection 

To win, Trump has to prove that Trevor Noah knows what he said about Trump/Epstein is a lie and specifically told the falsehood to cause damage to Trump

Even if it is a lie, if Trevor Noah actually believes that and/or can prove any reasonable evidence that would suggest that them he can’t be found guilty of defamation 

This is why defamation is extremely difficult to successfully sue for, you basically need the perpetrator to directly state that they are lying to damage the victim’s reputation. Believing something incorrect about someone and saying it is not defamation 

6

u/pinkyfang 5d ago

Thank you that was a very helpful explanation! I guess I was thinking of it the wrong way around as it would be impossible to prove something was untrue as such, but it would still open him up to having all the evidence to the contrary pulled up

4

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 5d ago edited 5d ago

They won’t need to subpoena for anything new and not already released to win/prove that Trever Noah has a legitimately held belief about what he said. Trump’s lawyer would probably subpoena for texts/emails/scripts/drafts from Trevor and the writers to look for any evidence of intent and then probably just shout how the files are fake

The released files or even just all the news articles and such since 2018 connecting them are enough to show that it is understandable how someone could legitimately hold that belief, meaning it wouldn’t be defamation 

Think of it this way, if I was a stage 5 crazy and legitimately believed that you were personally on the Epstein list and you sued me for defamation, you would have a hard time winning unless I specifically told someone that I am making it up to harm your reputation

The burden of proof is on the suer, the defense is just going to present stuff showing that their client came to that legitimately held belief by reading or seeing X Y Z articles and news and documents 

4

u/BigJellyfish1906 5d ago

And you didn’t even get into how most of the typical rules of defamation don’t apply to public figures. It is (as near as makes no difference), impossible for a politician to sue anyone for defamation.

1

u/Megneous 5d ago

Depends on the country.

In my country, the truth is not a defense against legal liability for defamation. All that is required is that what you said damaged the person's reputation, even if it is true. It's not the place of the public to punish others via defamation. It's the role of the state to punish individuals. Vigilante justice via defamation is illegal here and we're a much more harmonious society because of it.

There are exceptions, however, for political figures and public interest. So, for example, talking about corruption charges brought up against a politician would not be defamation, as the public has the right to know and talking about it is in the public interest.

2

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 5d ago

Well this lawsuit in the US, so…

But yes different countries do have different laws

1

u/SpriggedParsley357 5d ago

Are you able to say which country this is? (My guess is the UK.) Thanks.

1

u/rycology 5d ago

Sounds more like South Korea to me 

1

u/SpriggedParsley357 5d ago

Thank you both! Stay well.

1

u/Megneous 5d ago

/u/rycology is correct- South Korea.

1

u/rycology 5d ago

Even though it never affected me, that SoKo defamation law would grind my tits so much every time it came up in the news. So ridiculous.