A federal judge in Delaware has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Nina Jankowicz, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board, against Fox News. Chief U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly ruled that Jankowicz failed to substantiate her claims, asserting that the statements made by Fox News were either true or protected as opinion.
Jankowicz alleged that Fox News conducted a "malicious campaign of destruction" against her, falsely portraying her as a censor and a threat to free speech. The lawsuit focused on 37 statements made by Fox News, claiming these led to significant harassment and threats against her. However, Judge Connolly determined that 36 of the 37 statements were about the Disinformation Governance Board, not Jankowicz personally.
Nina Jankowicz's grift continues despite a judge throwing out her frivolous lawsuit against Fox News.
As @MLChristiansen reveals, Nina's new ploy is to target conservatives who undermine disinformation agents like her. pic.twitter.com/OJFLVIPmZh
— TENET Media (@watchTENETnow) July 29, 2024
A notable point in the case was Sean Hannity's use of Jankowicz's image during a segment where he described the Disinformation Governance Board as an entity dedicated to policing information. The judge ruled this was not defamatory since it accurately reflected the Board's charter, which involved coordination with the private sector to address misinformation.
The Disinformation Governance Board, established in 2022 by the Biden administration, aimed to combat false information, particularly from foreign sources. However, it faced significant backlash and was quickly disbanded. Jankowicz resigned from her position in May 2022 amid the controversy.
Judge Dismisses Nina Jankowicz Lawsuit Against Fox News [Biden's Disinformation Czar] #disinformation #ministryoftruth #censorship pic.twitter.com/wNiLv9bPYX
— Wesley L. Austin (@Wesleylaustin) July 26, 2024
Fox News argued that Jankowicz's claims did not meet the legal standards for defamation as the statements were true or protected opinions. The judge agreed, stating that terms like "censorship" could reasonably describe the Board's activities, which involved identifying misinformation and collaborating with external parties to mitigate it.
Jankowicz also contended that Fox News falsely implied she wanted to give verified Twitter users the power to edit other users' tweets. The judge dismissed this claim, citing Jankowicz's own statements endorsing the idea of adding context to tweets rather than removing them.
Fox News hailed the decision as a victory for free speech, arguing that the lawsuit was a politically motivated attempt to suppress criticism and debate.
This case underscores the complexities public figures face when pursuing defamation claims, especially regarding statements on matters of public interest and opinion.
