It should surprise no one if the first thing 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse does with his freedom is sue several media outlets for defamation. He would have every right to.
At least a handful of major news networks have spent the past week spreading outright lies about Rittenhouse’s case and smearing him as a “racist” and “white supremacist.” Just yesterday, MSNBC host Tiffany Cross referred to Rittenhouse as “this little murderous white supremacist.” A few days earlier, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough claimed Rittenhouse fired his weapon 60 times when evidence shows he fired his rifle a total of eight times. MSNBC host Joy Reid accused Rittenhouse of driving four hours with an AR-15 when Rittenhouse testified in court that he acquired the weapon at a friend’s house once he arrived in Kenosha. CBS reporter Mark Strassman also falsely claimed Rittenhouse crossed state lines “armed for battle.”
Those are just a few examples of how grossly irresponsible the press’s coverage of this case has been. No wonder, then, that Rittenhouse is already being approached by “a couple of other prominent lawyers” who want to help him make a civil defamation case, according to his defense attorney, Mark Richards.
“Much of the coverage at the beginning was wrong,” Richards said on Sunday. “The trial proved that. It makes me angry that they can’t take the time to get at least the generic basic facts correct because it didn’t fit the story they wanted to tell.”
There’s a good chance Rittenhouse would win any defamation case he chooses to pursue, according to Todd McMurtry, the lawyer who helped former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann win his defamation case against CNN. Because Rittenhouse is a private figure, his lawyers would only have to prove negligence on the part of whoever made the defamatory statement, McMurtry explained.
“I think Rittenhouse may be able to [make a case] when commentators on MSNBC say he’s a school shooter, a White supremacist, even a vigilante,” McMurtry told Fox News. “Lots of media people said he was a murderer, and I think that’s actionable because that suggests that he committed a crime, and we now know that he didn’t.”
The courts might, however, decide to treat Rittenhouse as a public figure or limited public figure because of the notoriety of his case, according to attorney and legal expert Jonathan Turley. In that case, Rittenhouse would need to prove actual malice motivated the defamatory statements. This would make things more complicated because characterizations of a person’s motivations or beliefs and opinions about the case are often exempted from the “malice” standard as free speech, Turley said.
Whatever Rittenhouse decides to do, it is clear he has been the victim of a targeted campaign led by rabid leftists in the media who believed he was the villain from the get-go and are now trying to convince everyone they were right. It does not matter how many facts they have to get wrong, how many lies they have to tell — they will continue to portray Rittenhouse as guilty.
Someone has to hold them to account. And if a defamation case is the best way to do that, Rittenhouse should lawyer up.
