Unfortunately that just isn’t something you can really sue for.
You can sue the administration putting the rules in place, but you can’t sue someone for saying something that’s then picked up by another person, and another, and so on until the president happens to hear about it.
It’s why, for example, financial sites will always have the disclaimer “this is not financial advice, seek the advice of a licensed financial professional, etc, etc”, because financial harms are often covered, (while other things affected by lies are not in most circumstances) when that lie is something you took action on, and that action caused you harm (e.g. “this stock is going to double tomorrow”, you buy it, it crashes)
But you can’t sue when that lie caused someone else to do something that indirectly caused you harm. (e.g. “this stock will crash in a week”, billionaire sells a ton of the stock, your retirement portfolio drops in value) In that case, only the billionaire would be eligible to sue the person who lied to them.
You might be able to sue Nick Shirley if you ran a daycare business and his false claims about your daycare caused your daycare to get attacked, but you couldn’t sue him if he lied about a daycare down the road and mobs started attacking every daycare in town because they just assumed all of them were at fault, and you certainly couldn’t sue if the claims he made then got to the social media feeds of some locals, which then caused local food banks run by those locals to stop offering food because they thought there’s a chance it could be obtained by scammers instead of those in need.
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander. Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved? Did they claim you did something, yes. Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes. All harmed should be able to sue
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved?
“Directly” is doing the heavy lifting here, and that’s why this doesn’t work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley’s claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn’t be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
Did they claim you did something, yes
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can’t sue.
Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes.
Unfortunately that’s something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying “I know it’s not true but I just hate those people” would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
All harmed should be able to sue
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it’d be beneficial overall.
Will? That’s another story. The legal system just isn’t set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I’ve mentioned previously.
Unfortunately that just isn’t something you can really sue for.
You can sue the administration putting the rules in place, but you can’t sue someone for saying something that’s then picked up by another person, and another, and so on until the president happens to hear about it.
It’s why, for example, financial sites will always have the disclaimer “this is not financial advice, seek the advice of a licensed financial professional, etc, etc”, because financial harms are often covered, (while other things affected by lies are not in most circumstances) when that lie is something you took action on, and that action caused you harm (e.g. “this stock is going to double tomorrow”, you buy it, it crashes)
But you can’t sue when that lie caused someone else to do something that indirectly caused you harm. (e.g. “this stock will crash in a week”, billionaire sells a ton of the stock, your retirement portfolio drops in value) In that case, only the billionaire would be eligible to sue the person who lied to them.
You might be able to sue Nick Shirley if you ran a daycare business and his false claims about your daycare caused your daycare to get attacked, but you couldn’t sue him if he lied about a daycare down the road and mobs started attacking every daycare in town because they just assumed all of them were at fault, and you certainly couldn’t sue if the claims he made then got to the social media feeds of some locals, which then caused local food banks run by those locals to stop offering food because they thought there’s a chance it could be obtained by scammers instead of those in need.
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander. Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved? Did they claim you did something, yes. Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes. All harmed should be able to sue
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
“Directly” is doing the heavy lifting here, and that’s why this doesn’t work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley’s claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn’t be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can’t sue.
Unfortunately that’s something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying “I know it’s not true but I just hate those people” would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it’d be beneficial overall.
Will? That’s another story. The legal system just isn’t set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I’ve mentioned previously.