MEMO TO ALEC BALDWIN: If you consistently act and speak like a jerk, avoid getting into flame wars with people on social media. Alec Baldwin was sued earlier this week by the family of a Marine killed in Afghanistan, according to the Casper Star-Tribune. Baldwin is being accused of weaponizing social media, and the fact pattern seems to support that theory, even if there is little case law that does.
The allegations in the Complaint sound a lot like Baldwin. Allegedly after making a donation to the family, Baldwin later learned that one of the family members was present at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Of course, to people like Baldwin it was more than a protest or riot, it was the bloodiest coup since the Ayatollah overthrew Iran’s Shah Pahlavi.
After learning of the woman’s attendance at the worst insurrection since forever, Baldwin quite naturally flipped out, and used his 2.4 million Twitter followers the same way the Wicked Witch of the North used her Flying Monkeys:
“[y]our activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, an assault on the certification of the presidential election. I reposted your photo. Good luck.”
“Go get her, folks.”
This case is a bit unusual because it holds Baldwin accountable for the words and actions of others, and causing intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. Here’s the key paragraph of the Complaint:
By way of example, among the hundreds upon hundreds of hateful messages ROICE began to receive one read, “Get raped and die, worthless c*nt (kiss emoji). Your brother got what he deserved.” Upon receiving this message, ROICE forwarded it to BALDWIN sarcastically “thanking” him for posting her Instagram feed. This unbelievably callous message from a woman who goes by the name “Antifa Ally.” Incredibly, even after reading it, BALDWIN actually followed Antifa Ally on Instagram.
***
BALDWIN then continued to chime in on the increasingly hostile feed saying that ROICE “participated in the insurrection” and that she was an “insurrectionist.” He continued to engage his followers. In doing so, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege that he fueled the firestorm of hatred that he started.”
Now comes the ironic part that court-watchers ought to look for: Baldwin has often blamed Trump for “blowing dog whistles” inciting hatred and for making speeches whipping the Jan. 6 crowd into a murderous frenzy that would have embarrassed Maximilien Robespierre. (That’s pretty much standard fare for Democrats with a habit of forgetting that pesky Constitution). “Fueled the firestorm of hatred”? True or false, isn’t that what their most oft-repeated line about Trump is? It’s always projection, isn’t it?
I am pretty certain that Baldwin’s posturing will be forgotten, and his defense lawyers (most likely connected to one of the country’s leading media defense firms) will suddenly remember that proving causation of another person’s speech, while not impossible, is a very high bar to cross.
**UPDATE: In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I was lead counsel in an amici brief to the Supremes actually defending the odious Westboro Baptist Church from IIED claims brought by families who claimed seeing the church’s insane protests (“God Hates Fags”) on TV hurt them. And yes, we won.**