Tipsheet
Premium

ICYMI: Judge Throws Out Ray Epps' Bogus Lawsuit Against Tucker Carlson

In case you missed it, a judge recently threw out a January 6th defendant’s defamation lawsuit against Tucker Carlson. This is a significant victory for free speech and a reminder that individuals should be held accountable for their actions in the public sphere, especially when they attempt to silence dissenting voices with frivolous legal action. 

Delaware Federal District Court Judge Jennifer Hall dismissed Ray Epps’ lawsuit, a former marine, against the former Fox News host, arguing that Carlson’s reporting on Epps was protected under the First Amendment rights. Epp’s lawyers initially claimed Carlson had acted with “actual malice” but could not prove it. 

The lawsuit alleged that Carlson had knowingly promoted what his attorneys said were “destructive conspiracy theories” about his involvement in the Capitol Hill protests. Carlson suggested that there may be video surveillance showing Epp’s encouraging Trump supporters to go into the Capitol. 

“I’m going to put this out there. I’m probably going to jail for it. Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peacefully,” Epps reportedly said in the video. “We’re far beyond that. In fact, tomorrow—I don’t even like to say it because I’ll be arrested—we need to go into the Capitol. We’re here to defend the Constitution.” 

However, Hall, a Biden appointee, ordered for the “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted.” 

Epps became a focus of conspiracy theories regarding January 6 and is often considered to be a suspicious character by Republicans who say his actions on the day of protests raise serious questions about whether he was quietly working with the federal government to incite the events that day at the Capitol.  

Disgraced former CNN host Brian Stelter claimed that Epps’ life was ruined by Carlson’s “promotion of false stories about him.” 

“It is especially clear that any conclusions were only opinions because the statements were replete with ‘cautionary language’ that signal opinion and interpretation,” Fox News’ lawyers wrote in a memorandum. “In one segment, after showing a video of Plaintiff, Mr. Carlson squarely stated: ‘Once again, you can draw whatever conclusions you like from that video. We have ours, and we shared them with you. Fox opinion hosts were clearly providing their interpretations that listeners could accept or reject based on their own assessment of the fully disclosed facts. First amendment protection for such commentary is essential for our democracy.”