It’s not always a negative when the rich get richer, especially when it’s because someone communicates information that is egregiously false, emotionally driven and shockingly damaging to someone’s reputation.

Just because we hate a person doesn’t mean that we get to make up patently false accusations and publicly communicate our feelings as truth, when they are lies.

Ben Armstrong, also known as Bitboy Crypto, just discovered this sobering, embarrassing, expensive reality the hard way after a judge socked him a $2.8 million-dollar penalty for defaming Kevin O’Leary, the businessman well-known for his appearances as an investor and media personality on the television show, “Shark Tank.”

Armstrong claimed on X in March 2025 that O’Leary was a murderer and that he “paid millions” for a coverup.

To make matters worse, Armstrong also posted O’Leary’s private cell phone number on X and encouraged followers to “call a real life murderer,” Judge Beth Bloom wrote.

A massive problem: Armstrong’s claims didn’t reflect the facts and truth.

Yes, O’Leary and his wife were involved in a boating accident in 2019 that resulted in two people being killed. Armstrong determined by himself that was “murder.” The courts and legal system said otherwise.

O’Leary’s wife, Linda, was exonerated after a trial on a charge of careless operation of a vehicle and Kevin O’Leary was never charged, reported Isaiah Portiz at Bloomberg Law.

“His wife Linda O’Leary was charged with careless operation of a vehicle but was exonerated after a trial. Kevin O’Leary was never charged.”

Now, does that mean they were innocent? Who knows. But Mr. O’Leary was not charged and Mrs. O’Leary was exonerated so someone can’t, with legal risk, publicly use inflammatory language, implied as fact, to harm them with scandalous communication that isn’t true.

Armstrong either knew the legal outcome and communicated what he did anyway or he showed a reckless disregard for the research and the facts and what he communicated to the public and the pain it could cause the O’Leary’s.

Bloom “entered a default judgment against,” Armstrong “because he failed to provide a substantive response to the lawsuit from O’Leary.

Here is the heavy financial burden that the court laid on Armstrong and his life.

“Bloom awarded about $78,000 in reputational damages, $750,000 in mental anguish damages and $2 million in punitive damages,” Portiz reported.

“She rejected Armstrong’s arguments that he failed to reply to the lawsuit in time because he suffered from mental health issues.”

Punished for reputation harm inflicted

Punished for mental health suffering

Punished for extreme wrong doing.

Armstrong played fast and lose with the law “and the law one.” He allowed his feelings to drive dangerous decision-making and behavior and got caught in a trap that he couldn’t escape. He will feel the pain that he tried to inflict.

A lesson others should heed and refrain from engaging in and act as encouragement for those people attacked with claims that can easily be proven false that have proven highly damaging to their reputation, life and peace.

Publisher’s Note: Neiman Mays Floch & Almeida PLLC represented O’Leary.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid for more benefits)

Subscribe now

Michael Toebe and Reputation Intelligence serve clients with matters of trust, stakeholder relationships and proactive and responsive communications.

Helpful guides are also available for sale.

My background includes work in research and analysis, media, conflict management, public relations, crisis communications and crisis management.

To learn more about services, you can click here. If you don’t see what you need, you are welcome to contact me below.

We may go our whole lives without having to experience defamation, whether in the form of libel or slander, yet for those who got trapped by it, they usually were not prepared for the hit, pain and suffering.

Some people have a low risk probability of being the target and victim of defamation while others have a higher (or high) probability. What isn’t common knowledge, which I will mention to you today, is that even if you’re an unlikely target for libel or slander, that doesn’t mean you will never be victimized by it.

You may end up being surprised (not pleasantly), shocked, overwhelmed, traumatized and have to long endure the damaging impacts (yes, plural) of nefarious people.

Why though?

Because people are emotionally-driven, sometimes corrupted by their psychology and willing to do whatever they can to harm you.

Keep in mind that I’m communicating about defamation, not claims of wrongdoing and character deficiencies that are factual.

I’m not communicating about wrongdoers who bellow “defamation!” and have their attorneys do so, in a strategic manner to deflect and deny and hide what they have done. I’m communicating legitimate deceptions, manufactured stories and lies.

“Defamation used to be contained to newspapers, legal filings or isolated online comments. Today, it spreads across social platforms and algorithm-driven content feeds at extraordinary speed,” wrote Chad Angle, the head at ReputationDefender at Gen Digital and an expert in executive privacy, digital risk strategy and online reputation management.

“AI has amplified this risk. Fabricated screenshots, synthetic audio or manipulated evidence can appear credible enough to gain traction before leaders even know they exist.”

In life, we protect ourselves regularly against certain risks, even when the probability of them happening are either low or likely, far off.

What we don’t do, usually out of ignorance or illogical disbelief, is protect ourselves against what could also be highly damaging, soul crushing and maybe now, more than ever, possible.

And there are bad actors in life. You and I know it because we’ve read or heard about them, witnessed these people or personally, painfully, experienced them.

If we previously thought it was easy for such perpetrators to deceive and lie and defame before, there is, Angle asserted, an even greater ease now because of the dangerous, near-universal access to and power of technology: the internet and AI.

That, combined with people’s character disturbances (a highly-recommended book) and them sometimes being a wolf in sheep’s clothing (also, a highly-recommended book), make for a superhighway for launching an attack and setting off a bomb in someone’s professional and personal life, maybe yours or someone you care about.

So, “What do I do about it?”

Be forward thinking. Look ahead, regularly, as a protective strategy.

Evaluate people, situations with them and their dissatisfaction, communication, behavior and any concerning signals about skill deficiencies and impulse control with their aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior that they’ve shown you regarding their self control.

Angle says that mitigating reputational risk before it becomes a crisis is wisdom in practice and that’s hard to argue against. In the link near the top of this brief, he wrote in depth about this issue from an organizational standpoint and detailed what you can do, if that might appeal to you.

Clearly understand that “slow response times and opportunities for quick resolution are missed,” Angle wrote. This doesn’t have to be the painful experience most of the time. It should be rare that slow response times and missed defense are the errors.

Hopefully, after reading this brief today, your thinking has been stimulated to the point you will take initiative and develop, implement and review an ethical, protective strategy as a form of risk protection.

Angle proposes systems for larger-scale organizations and leaders yet I propose to you that there are approaches that you, as an individual or small group, can also learn and apply or you can seek out professional assistance with to “move with speed and discipline” and I assert, protective effectiveness.

We’re safe, until we’re not. Remember that truism.

Just because we’re safe today doesn’t mean we always be, not in a world where people’s problematic psychology and behavior run over or seek to annihilate others, now with the weapons of technology available to them.

Share

Subscribe for free (or paid, for additional benefits)

Subscribe now

Michael Toebe and Reputation Intelligence serve clients with matters of trust, stakeholder relationships and proactive and responsive communications.

Helpful guides are also available for sale.

My background includes work in research and analysis, media, conflict management, public relations, crisis communications and crisis management.

Imagine having to fight a case of defamation inflicted upon you by someone previously close and trusted. Sadly, it happens. Often, you lose. Sometimes, you win.

Jack Nicklaus, winner of 117 professional golf tournaments in his career, including a record 18 major championships and a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame, received positive news this week when a Florida jury awarded him $50 million from his former business partners and the business, Nicklaus Companies, with his name on it.

“The Palm Beach County jury found that the Nicklaus Companies had participated in distributing, and actively encouraged the publication of, false contentions that damaged Nicklaus’ reputation,” reported Jay Busbee at Yahoo Sports, “exposing him to ‘ridicule, hatred, mistrust or contempt.’”

The work was a smear campaign, driven by the feeling of theft of business and money.

One of the claims was that Nicklaus had “secretly negotiated a $750 million deal with LIV Golf to join the Saudi-backed club,” reported Devlina Sarkar at Newsweek.

“These are the people who planted a story,” Nicklaus’s attorney Eugene Stearns told jurors during closing arguments, as quoted by the Palm Beach Post. “The story is a lie,” he added. “What they wanted to create in the minds of the public is Jack Nicklaus is an old guy who sold out to the Saudis.”

You can see why the court of public opinion would become disgust, anger and social disapproval, resulting in reputation pain, costs and trauma for someone.

The defense had something to say, disputing that Nicklaus was harmed.

“During closing arguments, Barry Postman, attorney for the companies, contended that Nicklaus did not, in fact, suffer reputational injury,” Busbee reported. “There is no evidence any business was lost. No evidence of money lost,” Postman said. “His reputation is as stellar as it’s always been. His life is as stellar as it’s always been. There are no damages.”

More on that a little later.

The Fuse that Likely Lit the Conflict

“Nicklaus’ 2017 retirement from the company started the clock on a five-year noncompete clause…,” Busbee wrote.

“Nicklaus formally stepped down from the Nicklaus Companies’ board in May 2022. He sought to use his own name in business dealings at the end of the noncompete agreement.

“The Nicklaus Companies then filed suit against him, alleging tortious interference, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, contending he had withheld business opportunities from Nicklaus Companies and kept them for himself.”

Ah, there it is: the motivation and rationalization, a “they deserved it” belief.

It’s also important to go back to what Postman said above because it too is revealing. He argued that no harm was created even if the motivation and intent was there and the goal was harm.

That’s a questionable conclusion and it doesn’t excuse wrongdoing.

Harm was inflicted because Nicklaus didn’t want to be seen as being a doddering old man, incapable of sound decision making and he didn’t want to be judged as in bed, figuratively speaking, or attempting to get in bed with the Saudis, for money, because of how violently they are viewed by some or by many in the United States.

Harsh Reality Yet a Lie is a Lie

“It’s always hard in a defamation case to prove damages to reputation, because in particular for a guy like Jack, it’s always such a good one,” Stearns told ESPN.

“But I think what was important was the dispute that arose 3½ years ago when the company told the world that Jack was selling out the PGA Tour for the Saudi golf, when it was not true. So, we’re happy that Jack’s been vindicated.”

The Outcome

Ultimately, Postman’s defense didn’t prevent the judgment in favor of Nicklaus.

“The $50 million award sent a clear message about the cost of reputational harm and the sanctity of personal legacy,” wrote Sarkar.

Slandering or libeling someone’s name, whether it is judged and punished that way or not by the courts, often succeeds in its intent. That’s one of the ugly realities of society.

Yet one can choose to stand up against it, win or lose, in court or out of it.

Sometimes, the offenders escape reasonable legal, social and financial consequences.

Sometimes though, not as often as they get away with it, perpetrators get caught for communicating or participating in half truths, lies and other inflammatory behavior.

They are held justifiably accountable due to facts, context and truth.

Michael Toebe is a reputation and communications specialist at Reputation Intelligence, which he started to help people gain a better understanding of emotions and responses in disputes and conflicts and defamation in personal and professional relationships.

One of his services is defamation response, whether that be working with someone in conjunction with their attorney or legal team or one-on-one in a public relations, conflict management and crisis communications type of capacity.

Subscribe now

A judge has dismissed a $25-million defamation lawsuit filed by a woman against actor and television show host Mario Lopez after he made fun of her online on social media. In addition, Desirée Townsend has been ordered to pay Lopez’s legal bills.

In June, she sued him for the trifecta of defamation, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Townsend had commented on Lopez’s post that she found out of bounds, offensive and ignorant, “You are so (expletive) gross. I have been constantly harassed for having a rare disease … I hope you lose your job and never work again,” she fumed.

“And I PROMISE YOU I will file a defamation case against you and your employers” at the entertainment news television show, Access Hollywood.”

Vindication

“A judge has officially thrown it out and rewarded me. Victory,” Lopez said. “And now, this person is responsible for my legal fees and hopefully, out of our lives forever.”

Not so Fast, Townsend Says

“It’s on to the appellate courts now!” she exclaimed. “This is where real change happens and where case law is shaped.”

The Backstory

In 2009, Townsend claimed in a video interview that a flu shot led to spasming and that she could only walk normally in a backwards fashion.

In 2024, Lopez posted that clip on Instagram, with the caption, “There’s gotta be some kind of award for this performance… #MethodActor #OscarWorthy.”

The Lawsuit, in Brief

Townsend’s legal team alleged that Lopez utilized a crisis PR team to smear Townsend on social media and that behavior was deeply damaging.

“Despite enduring over 16 years of media-driven scrutiny, mockery and reputational harm, (Townsend) has made every effort to rebuild her life and restore her professional standing,” the suit alleged.

“(Lopez’s) defamatory statement, along with the newly viral smear campaign carried out by (Lopez), has revictimized (Townsend) and retraumatized her by reigniting the same false narratives that have plagued her for over a decade.“

The Legal Reply from Lopez

Lopez’s argued that his comment was and is protected speech.

His attorney stood on it.

“(Lopez) alleges that (Townsend’s) claims are barred because (Lopez’s) statements were purely opinions, and not statements of fact, and no reasonable person who heard the statements would have interpreted them as anything but opinions.”

The Ruling in His Favor

The court decided and ruled that Lopez’s Instagram post is “non-actionable opinion” and “in the context from the average viewer of (Lopez’s) personal Instagram account, the Court does not find that the average viewer of the instant Instagram post would find the post anything more than an opinion...”

It’s also important, the court added, that in this particular case, since Lopez is not a doctor, he was not presenting medical opinion when he implied that Townsend was faking, or acting, the side effects of a vaccine.

Instead, the judge stated that Lopez’s communication was “comedic interpretation” of (Townsend’s) actions in the Inside Edition video.”

What Townsend Says She Learned

“I ended up developing an autoimmune disease called Stiff-Person syndrome, which was recently covered in the news, as Celine Dion also has it.”

Disappointed Yet not Deterred

Townsend is hurt and feeling that a wrong has not been righted. She will appeal.

The “court never addressed a significant portion of my First Amended Complaint, namely, the allegations of a coordinated smear campaign and my right to amend the complaint to pursue claims against the Doe defendants,” Townsend said.

“This omission alone provides a strong basis for appeal.

“Mario ‘won’ this round largely because the statute provides insufficient guidance for courts on key issues. The judge even noted that his decision would likely be cited by the appellate court and he’s right. This case needs appellate review to provide clarity and direction moving forward.”

I sincerely respect Townsend’s confidence, commitment to seeking help for a wrong (real or perceived) and the drive to show that she was indeed defamed. The courts don’t always rule correctly.

The questions that have to be asked: legally speaking, was an offense committed?While Lopez didn’t have to publish his comments, will the judicial system see it as Townsend does, that a smear campaign was committed and that the courts can and should punish “team” Lopez for it?

Smear campaigns do happen. The courts don’t always detect them or honestly, give a damn. Will Townsend win on that argument? She appears to be confident she could.

Are the odds in her favor that the appellate court will provide Townsend the legal remedy and relief to which she feels she is legally and socially due and is within the parameters of the law and the court’s ability and willingness to provide?

While, it seems unlikely (fair or not, and the courts aren’t often “fair” and “just”), who knows. Townsend, however, feels the mission is the good fight and worth the struggle.

She will be taking more swings to “right” what she feels was unnecessary from Lopez and an offense worth a legal judgment and millions of dollars in her bank account.

Subscribe now

Michael Toebe is a specialist for analyzing opportunities, risks and decisions, providing professional opinion and consulting, advising and conducting communications, all in the context of trust, (professional and personal) relationships and reputation. He has worked in media, public relations, media relations, conflict management and negotiation. Additionally, he has experience providing opinion in court cases and writing guides.

Substack profile and LinkedIn profile

A former FBI agent and now, political commentator and podcaster, Kyle Seraphin, is being sued by Alexis Wilkins, the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel, for comments he made of claiming on his show that Wilkins is a “former Mossad agent” for the Israeli “equivalent” of the National Security Agency, as well as being a “honeypot.”

According to Wilkins’ complaint, Seraphin, falsely alleged that she was a foreign agent “assigned to manipulate and compromise the Director of the FBI. … These accusations are all categorically false and Defendant knows it.”

When Wilkins was asked about the claims, including whether she is a spy, on the Megyn Kelly show, she laughed and replied, “Definitely not. That is a firm no.”

The question is how the lawsuit play out and which side’s attorneys will have the edge.

Wilkins' attorneys have legal boxes and challenges to achieve their mission in court.

“They will have to prove that Seraphin's statements are false and made with ‘actual malice,’” says Christopher Migliaccio, founder and lead attorney at WMTX Law, who has litigated complicated defamation and high stake civil disputes. “This is due to Wilkins being closely intertwined with a well-known public official.

“Judges may categorize her as a limited-purpose public figure. That means Wilkins' attorneys must prove that Seraphin either knew the false nature of the accusations or acted in ‘reckless disregard’ for the truth.”

Migliaccio hits on some additional keys for Wilkins’ legal team.

The desired legal remedy is not guaranteed.

“If it turns out that Seraphin's statements have legal protections because they are a form of opinion or hyperbole, that would help Seraphin if he was taken to court,” Migliaccio says.

“If discovery establishes a factual underpinning, even if it is flimsy, it will complicate Wilkins' case. There is an uphill battle for all cases based on public discourse, due to First Amendment protections.”

Migliaccio assessed the odds of Wilkins team winning the case against Seraphin.

“On the face of it, Wilkins has a reasonable claim,’ he says, going on to explain, “Espionage and treason are not just insults; they are specific, verifiable claims.

“Wilkins' overall success will depend on proving malice. If Wilkins' team can show that Seraphin tweeted these accusations with no reliable evidence, she has a good chance of winning or at least striking a good settlement.”

Subscribe now

Share

Freedom of speech only goes so far. There are limits. Yes, politics inspires heated emotions and leads to people writing or saying things that are high risk, even if they don’t realize it in the moment. Yet, caution is always advised. One writer just got hit hard legally and financially for what he claimed about FBI Director Kash Patel.

A series of communications proved, at least for now, to be a financially and reputationally expensive error.

Patel and his Kash Foundation won their defamation lawsuit against Jim Stewartson, after the activist and writer communicated that Patel was a "Kremlin asset” who was involved in attempting to overthrow the United States government by planning the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Stewartson, who defines himself as an anti-disinformation activist and writes MindWar on the Substack platform, had posted a series of social media posts and other comments that resulted in him getting sued.

He reportedly didn’t respond to court filings regarding Patel’s lawsuit, according to Dan Mangan, writing at CNBC. More on this later in this article.

Judge Andrew Gordon, U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, ruled against Stewartson and ordered him to pay $250,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on the grounds that, “Factual criticism of, and opinions about, public figures are protected speech and must be tolerated," Gordon wrote. "But defamatory falsehoods made with actual malice are not protected, even if directed at public officials.”

Proving malice can be extremely challenging yet in this case, Patel’s attorney’s did.

“Patel had sought $10 million in damages on claims of defamation, injurious falsehood and business disparagement,” Mangan reported. “The judge said punitive damages were warranted in the case in part to deter Stewartson and others from engaging in defamation.’”

Stewartson responded with surprise, annoyance and disgust.

"I was never served with this lawsuit,” he told CNBC. “I just found out about the judgement from trolls on Twitter last week."

He continued with his defense through the media, saying that different legal actions have been "intended to intimidate me because I have been accurately and diligently reporting on Patel and (former Trump national security advisor Michael) Flynn's involvement in the QAnon movement and their participation on January 6th for five years.

"It is a preposterous, frivolous lawsuit and neither of them will receive a dime," Stewartson retorted. "In fact, I intend to pursue my own case against them for their years-long campaign of abuse of me and the legal system."

He sounds like a lawyer with his language.

If Stewartson can present a strong case to back and prove his claims with legal counsel, the appeal will be interesting to follow. Right now, it’s advantage Patel.

Appeals succeed sometimes so this case may remain in motion and bears watching.

From the Bench

"Clearly (Patel’s) reputation was not significantly sullied by the defamatory statements,” Gordon said of the now-FBI Director. He added that there was "almost no concrete evidence of harm or damages suffered by Patel's foundation. "All of the defamatory statements were directed at Mr. Patel individually," the judge noted.

That said, Gordon still ruled that compensatory and punitive damages were warranted in the case, because, "Stewartson's statements were defamatory and caused presumed damages," Gordon explained.

Patel was awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.

Gordon awarded Patel’s foundation $25,000 in compensatory damages, and the same amount in punitive damages, after accepting as a reasonable estimate a claim that at least seven donors had stopped giving to the group.

There was complexity in this ruling and there are still moving parts because of the upcoming appeal. Patel has “success” for now and may feel relieved and celebratory yet he, like Stewartson, likely still carries some stress because this case isn’t yet over and set in stone.

Winning defamation cases is often extremely difficult, even when the facts show people have been harmed. Appeals are also hard to win. It happens though.

Patel vs. Stewartson: to be continued…

Subscribe now

Share

Michael Toebe is a reputation and communications specialist at Reputation Intelligence and writes the Reputation Intelligence newsletter here on Substack and on LinkedIn. He helps individuals and organizations proactively and responsively with matters of trust, stakeholder relationships and reputation.

He has been a reporter for newspapers and radio, hosted a radio talk show, written for online business magazines, been a media source, helped people work through disputes, conflicts and crises and assisted clients with communications to further build, protect, restore and reconstruct reputation. LinkedIn profile.

Certain factual experiences and the meaning we subconsciously or consciously attach to them can be perceived and interpreted distinctly differently by people. In certain situations, that can be inaccurate and false and become highly problematic and dangerous for someone.

Yael Schonbrun, writing at Relational Riffs, her Substack newsletter, recently examined this topic and I want to share it parts of it here as it relates to interactions where credibility, trust, relationships, reputation and well-being are negatively and unfairly or unjustly impacted.

Her article was titled, If We Both Lived It, Why Do We Remember It So Differently?

That’s a question, I presume, many people have had come to mind and no clarity developed for them in the moment or maybe, ever.

Schonbrun began by addressing “why people can’t agree on what really happened.” If you’ve ever lived such an experience, it can be confusing, discouraging, hurtful, maddening or depressing. It makes no sense to someone how facts are being interpreted differently, for whatever reasonable, puzzling or deviant reasons.

In her article, she refers to the work of Charan Ragnanath, a professor of psychology and neuroscience, the director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of California at Davis and an author.

Some people’s minds can naturally lean into assumptions that get negatively colored by their biases. If a story their mind creates makes sense to them, their strong conviction about what happened becomes their reality, even if that doesn’t align with the facts and what truly transpired.

Reasonably questioning beliefs, fact-checking and objectivity matter less than emotional subjectivity. People may have endured previous suffering and trauma and developed fears. They may have emotional hyper-reactivity about a person or situation that results in triggers and lower-level analysis that play a big role in how experiences are processed and remembered.

This means that it isn’t highly unusual and out of the question that “our memories are necessarily exceedingly biased,” Schonbrun explained.

She went on to refer to research. “As one study shows, our retrospective judgment is biased even when our in-the-moment perception is relatively unbiased,” Schonbrun wrote.

Memory can be faulty. Not always, of course. Maybe even not most of the time. Sometimes? Absolutely. That may seem insignificant yet it isn’t. A lot of pain and at times, death, has been inflicted on children, women and men because of this reality.

“I’m often asked, ‘How is it that two people can experience the same event together and yet recall it so differently?’” Schonbrun recalled.

“To quote Ben Kenobi from Star Wars, ‘Many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view.’ People’s different goals, emotions and beliefs lead them to interpret an event from particular perspectives, and those perspectives will also shape how they reconstruct an event later on,” she explained.

Notice: “particular perspectives.” They can be ones, at least at times, that are inaccurate or blatantly wrong and harmful to others.

Stress is an Important Variable in Memory

“Although neuromodulators can enhance retention of a memory for a stressful event, it doesn’t mean we will remember it accurately,” Ranganath wrote.

Why though?

A Potential Remedy

“One of the ways to bridge the gap, then, is to recognize the unreliability of our own memory (if you’re like most people, you don’t have to work quite as hard to see the flaws in (other people’s) memories),” Schonbrun wrote.

It is critical to mention again that what has been presented in this article is not to say that most people’s memories are always false or often inaccurate or wrong, especially when illegal or immoral wrongdoing has been committed.

It is to say that human’s memories and what they communicate about them are not always beyond reasonable curiosity, questioning and doubting at certain times because of what science has learned and what Schonbrun and Ragnanath have learned and clearly communicated.

Memories can help us greatly yet too frequently can unfairly and unjustly harm others reputationally, socially, relationship health and their survival, legally, mentally and physically, safety wise, opportunity wise and financially.

Share

Subscribe now

Michael Toebe is the specialist at Reputation Intelligence, helping individuals and organizations with matters of credibility, trust, decision analysis, communications, relationships and reputation.

You can DM him on Substack or contact him below for consulting, risk analysis, coaching, ongoing advisory, a variety of proactive and responsive communications and reputation (not legal) representation.

Reputation Intelligence Guides for Purchase

On Apology, What We Can Learn and Do Better
Learn more

Your Reputation Signature: What It Is, Why It Matters and How to Protect, Restore and Reconstruct It
Learn more

Halo and Horns Effect: Why It's Critical to Remember
Learn more

Lawfare, Corruption and Violence of ‘Legally Supported’ Attacks On You
Learn more

Outcomes can confuse and upset us. How did that happen, we ask ourselves? It doesn’t add up, it’s wrong. People got it wrong! It often takes researching deeper to find the reasoning and “why” underneath what currently makes no sense or angers us.

To many professionals in the media — and public observers — it was alarming and maddening that Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against ABC News and broadcaster George Stephanopoulos led to a (robotic, tight-lipped) apology from the network and a $15 million payout for Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate wording regarding the incoming president’s wrongful violent, sexual behavior towards a woman.

Stephanopoulos said on television that Trump had been “found liable for rape” against E. Jean Carroll and “defaming the victim of that rape.”

While most all people would agree that what Trump was described of doing was in fact, rape, “neither verdict involved a finding of rape as defined under New York law,” reported Michael R. Sisak at the Associated Press.

In the first lawsuit, Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. At a second lawsuit, Trump was found liable of ongoing defamation.

She was awarded a $5 million judgment in the first verdict and $83.3 million in the second. Trump is appealing.

Communicating to an audience that Trump had committed rape when the courts did not rule that was what happened means what was stated was legally false. He sexually abused her — which is not any less heinous — yet it is different, per New York law.

ABC News journalists were reportedly irate that management didn’t fight Trump, with legal experts believing that the media outlet would have prevailed and by not standing up against him, they failed to support Stephanopoulos, the news department, reporters and the truth.

Facts Verse USA produced a video — “The REAL Reason Why George Stephanopoulos Paid $15M to Settle Trump Lawsuit” — to discover why ABC News chose to settle.

Here are its assertions:

Pre-trial discovery and the deep dive into internal operations, potentially exposing sensitive information that could be leveraged against the network

RI: This is no little thing. If you have something that is potentially embarrassing, shameful and high risk in hiding, you want to avoid legal discovery. ABC News may have had unprofessional or unethical dirt on itself that it didn’t want coming to light.

Cost of prolonged litigation

RI: The settlement amount was relatively mild in comparison to what it could have become.

Extensive negative publicity

RI: This was a given. ABC News decided it didn’t have a high tolerance for this risk so made the decision, figuratively speaking, to “fold its cards.” Begrudgingly.

Financial and reputational stakes for ABC News and George Stephanopoulos would grow significantly

RI: The legal defense costs plus a much larger settlement was distasteful but the bigger pain was the fear of the reputational damage to not only ABC News but it’s top people. It could have further eroded trust in the media outlet, drove greater distrust in media nationally and angered the public and fellow media.

Risk of uncovering damaging information that could further tarnish ABC News' reputation

RI: ABC News isn’t dumb. It knew what was possible or likely to be discovered and it may not have been conducting business ethically, unbiased and free from scandal.

This allowed the network to contain the situation and prevent further escalation

RI: Conducting mitigation of damages and risk is sometimes necessary and wise, no matter how painful it is to the ego and stakeholders.

There are important, valuable, concise points and lessons from this story:

Trump’s behavior is not being questioned. It was wrong. What he reportedly did is considered “rape” by almost everyone. It just didn’t align with the legal definition of it in the state in which the case was held, so communicating it as “rape” is going to get you sued for defamation.

Stephanopoulos is an educated man and experienced professional. He knew what he was communicating and that it wasn’t factual and did so anyway. His arrogance was similar to walking into boiling water. It was reckless. He shouldn’t be surprised. Stephanopoulos was reportedly “apoplectic” about his employer not standing by him. He did it to himself, willingly.

You can feel how you feel and make your own judgment calls: “Trump is a rapist,” if you want to say it. You won’t get many arguments.

You just can’t, as a media member, communicate an inflammatory (legal) falsehood and misrepresentation as a statement of fact when the record shows it isn’t correct.

There will critics who say that ABC News “bent” the knee with Trump in preparation for his upcoming term. It didn’t. It protected itself from greater risk.

Other media professionals and outlets paid attention to what happened to Stephanopoulos and ABC News with the wrong wording about Trump that wasn’t considered factual. “Sexual abuse” would have worked. It’s just as damning.

Hate the man. Express opinion. Don’t communicate in a way that could be deemed defamatory and significantly raise the odds of being sued and be left suffering immense stress, reputation and cost having to defending yourself.

You don’t know if you will be able to defeat the legal action against you.

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter — Reputation Intelligence — is written by Michael Toebe, and is a product of Reputation Intelligence - Reputation Quality, a firm which helps individuals and organizations assure a greater peace of mind, provide stress relief through reliable decision analysis, consulting, advisory and communications.

Professional analysis and opinion — Consulting — Advisory

Reputation Communications — Defamation Response — Speaking Engagements

Crisis Communications — Crisis Management

A citizen can share news online and voice their opinion about social issues upon which they disagree or which infuriate them. It is still expected however that when talking about people, especially in a disparaging way, that what we communicate is factual and truthful and does not falsely misrepresent them and harm them.

Another blogger discovered that she either jumped to conclusions or that her disgust and agenda led her to do something egregious, offensive, dangerous and costly: “Idaho drag performer awarded $1.1m in defamation case, Blogger falsely claimed performer exposed himself to children during Pride event.”

This article is not about drag performers. That doesn’t matter in this story. What does matter is someone being the catalyst for extensive harm by defaming another person.

“COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho — A jury has awarded more than $1.1 million to an Idaho drag performer who accused a far-right blogger of defaming him when she falsely claimed that he exposed himself to a crowd, including children, during a Pride event in June 2022,” reports the Associated Press (AP).

You can see how such an accusation could be a crushing blow to someone’s social standing and professional and personal well-being. It being untrue makes it worse.

“The Kootenai County District Court jury unanimously found that Summer Bushnell defamed Post Falls resident Eric Posey when she posted a doctored video of his performance with a blurred spot that she claimed covered his ‘fully exposed genitals,’” the Coeur D’Alene Press reported.

That type of inflammatory, public communication can end many professional and personal relationships for someone and quite possibly push them to suicide or if not that, then still dark depression and suicidal ideation. A small percentage of harmed people might go so far as to retaliate with violence, maybe even widespread violence.

“In reality, the unedited video showed no indecent exposure, and prosecutors declined to file charges,” according to the AP.

“The judicial system did what needed to be done,” Posey said. “Jurors awarded Posey $926,000 in compensatory damages for defamation. Because Posey proved that Bushnell knew her allegations were false when she made them or that she made the accusations with reckless disregard for the truth, the jury awarded $250,000 in additional punitive damages,” the AP reported.

Here is what was and is factual:

“Posey… performed three times at the Pride in the Park celebration wearing a long-sleeve leotard, black shorts and tights, with a shiny metallic boa around his waist. He did not remove clothing,” the AP wrote.

“Why did no one arrest the man in a dress who flashed his genitalia to minors and people in the crowd?” Bushnell said when communicating online. “No one said anything about it, and there’s video. I’m going to put up a blurred video to prove it.”

Imagine for a moment of being publicly accused of such horrific behavior.

The following day, Bushnell went so far as to communicate that Posey “had committed a felony and urged people to call police and have him arrested,” the AP reported.

Fast forward to the verdict. She was expressionless as she hurried out of the courtroom. Posey’s reaction was relief and joy as he burst into tears and hugged his lawyers and friends, the AP wrote.

“Imagine being in a dark hole where you have nobody and you felt the whole world turn their back on you,” Posey said in court previously. “But somehow, you were surrounded by warriors, true people of Idaho — not transplants, true people of this soil. I am fortunate to say I have people like that around me, people that lifted me up.”

Interestingly, “before returning the verdict, jurors asked the court if they could direct Bushnell to take down her posts about Posey and publicly apologize to him,” according to the AP.

The answer may have surprised them and readers now.

”First District Judge Ross Pittman, who presided over the trial, indicated they could not do so.”

Anger and ego drive a lot of poor decision making. Most of us have learned that from our own behavior or from what we have observed in life.

In this case, the blogger — Summer Bushnell — may have had good intentions or thought she did but in what appears to be a case of confirmation bias mixed with disgust and fuzzy perception, she jumped the gun and communicated something that was not factual and true and called for legal action against a person who had not committed a crime.

Even if cruelty wasn’t her motive, it was destructive behavior towards another human.

It was a bad scene and one she likely had no idea would accelerate into legal action against her and a judgment that will, I suspect, cause her misery the rest of her life.

There are specific ways that writers, podcasters and video content creators can wisely, precisely communicate that doesn’t defame and if not eliminate defamation risks, makes the likelihood of them minimal.

Resist the temptation to assume, to be overconfident, to communicate overly definitively, without more research. Be more controlled in what you say and how you say it and what is said and inferred and what is not communicated.

Seems simple. It’s not. It is doable.

Thank you for reading the Reputation Intelligence newsletter…

Michael Toebe is a reputation consultant, advisor and communications specialist at Reputation Intelligence: Reputation Quality, assisting individuals and organizations with further building reputation as an asset or ethically and responsibly protecting, restoring or reconstructing it.

Professional Opinion, Consulting (about a particular situation),
Ongoing Advisory, Public Speaking and Communications.

A comprehensive list of defamation knowledge and help can be found at Reputation Intelligence - Reputation Quality.

Subscribe now

Follow Reputation Intelligence on Twitter/ “X”

Follow Reputation Intelligence on the Medium platform for more stories/insights

Subscriber Advisory Briefs