FOLLOW US

 Explosive Takeaways

1. AOC accuses TikTok of collaborating with Trump administration prematurely
2. Congresswoman refers to Trump as a "rapist" in explanation for skipping inauguration
3. Ocasio-Cortez warns followers of an "authoritarian administration" on the horizon

By Samuel A. Lopez - USA Herald

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) launched a series of fiery Instagram posts on the day before Donald Trump's inauguration, sparking controversy and raising questions about the limits of political speech.

The outspoken congresswoman made several bold statements, including her refusal to attend the inauguration and her characterization of the incoming administration.

An emotional AOC began her day on social media by scolding TikTok for a notification that thanked "President Trump" for restoring the app. She pointed out that Trump was still a private citizen and questioned the app's credibility for referring to him as "President" before his inauguration.

"First of all, Donald Trump is not president right now. He is a private citizen. He does not have access to presidential powers, he does not have the ability to do any of that," AOC said in her Instagram stories. She suggested that TikTok's notification signaled a private collaboration with Trump and his administration.

"And for all of those concerns that people were saying that TikTok is going to be used as a propaganda tool by the Chinese, understand they’re using it as a propaganda tool for the right," she added. AOC warned her followers, "We are on the eve of an authoritarian administration. This is what 21st century fascism is starting to look like."

Later in the evening, AOC expressed her frustration with being asked if she would attend Trump's inauguration. "All these journalists were like congresswoman, are you going to the inauguration? Congresswoman are you going to the inauguration? Are you going to the inauguration? Let me make myself clear. I don't celebrate rapists, so no, I'm not going to the inauguration room," she stated matter-of-factly.

AOC's remarks sparked controversy, especially after the Libs of TikTok account reposted her comments and suggested that Trump should sue her for calling him a rapist. AOC responded on X, "Oh, are you triggered? Cry more."

What AOC failed to realize is that her response to Libs of TikTok, could be the evidence needed to prove actual malice, an essential element to prove in a defamation and libel lawsuit. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

In May 2023, a New York jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. The case revolved around allegations that Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has vehemently denied the allegations and is appealing the verdict.

(Note: President Trump has never been charged or convicted of rape.)

Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury to someone's reputation. Libel is a form of defamation that involves written or published false statements. To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff must generally prove the following:

1. False Statement: The statement made was false.
2. Publication: The statement was published or communicated to a third party.
3. Injury: The statement caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation.
4. Fault: The statement was made with a certain level of fault, such as negligence or actual malice.

Accusing someone of being a rapist when they have never been convicted of rape is a false statement. If this accusation was made publicly in writing and other published materials, it meets the publication requirement. The false accusation could harm the person's reputation, fulfilling the injury requirement. Since the statement is false and potentially damaging, AOC could be found at fault.

The fact that Trump was convicted in a civil matter of sexual abuse, but that conviction is pending appeal, does not change the false nature of the rape accusation. The distinction between "rape" and "sexual abuse" is significant, and falsely labeling someone as a rapist can be considered defamatory.

Public officials are considered public figures, and the standard for proving defamation against them is higher. In the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court established that public officials must prove "actual malice" to win a defamation lawsuit. This means they must show that the false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

AOC's comments were not just about Trump personally but also painted a broader stroke of political critique, warning of an "authoritarian administration" and "21st century fascism." Here, she steps into the arena of political speech, which enjoys strong protections under the First Amendment, especially when discussing matters of public concern or the conduct of public officials.

But let's not forget, freedom of speech isn't absolute. If AOC's statements are proven to be made with reckless disregard for the truth, she might find herself in legal hot water, despite the protections for public figures.

For further in-depth legal analysis of the AOC-Trump defamation and libel matter, including a deep dive into claims, defenses, and strategies, visit my Patreon page and get your digital copy of our whitepaper on this matter: patreon.com/SAMUELADAM.

Defamation and Political Rhetoric: A Deep Dive into AOC’s Instagram Rants Against Donald Trump - Analyzing Defamation & Libel

Fact-Check Section

• TikTok Notification: TikTok sent a notification thanking "President Trump" for restoring the app, despite Trump not yet being president.
• Trump's Legal Case: In May 2023, a New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.
• Defamation Law: Public officials must prove "actual malice" to win a defamation lawsuit, as established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).