It's hard to think of the best way to sum up Dr. Robert Malone's shocking defamation lawsuit seeking $25 million in damages from Dr. Peter Breggin, Ginger Breggin, America Out Loud, Dr. Jane Ruby, and Red Voice Media (Stew Peters). It's a stink bomb of a disgrace, an anti-personnel weapon of free-speech-destruction, a heat-seeking lawfare missile targeting financial ruin. Above all, though, it's an outrage that Dr. Malone has filed suit against some of the most dedicated, hard-working, courageous and ground-breaking truth-seekers to have emerged during the unfolding horror of the covidian tyranny.
I've spent the past couple of days mulling the 14 bulleted items of the Material Facts of the complaint -- the alleged "false statements and implications of defamation." As an aside, I never heard of "implications of defamation," a legal term that strikes me as coming from the magical school of "shadows and penumbras." How feathery and wispy such a "offense" is. In fact, is it even applicable to a public figure such as Dr. Malone? Is it even for real?
Of course, the $25 million in damages Malone is suing for is for real, so it's probably worthing spending some time trying to match the allegedly "defamatorily implicative" (?) statements and paraphrases with the complaint's listed sources. It's not easy. The compIaint sources sentence-fragments and non-verbatim statements to one-hour-interviews without providing minute-marks. This makes some of the charges impossible to evaulate on their face. At this point, though, I've already managed to identify a couple of sloppy misattributions as well some extremely fuzzy paraphrasing; however, I have not found any defamation. I've found passion, logic, efforts to understand and explain, and hot-sparky polemics galore, but, again, no defamation. Have I found "implications" of defamation? What does that even mean and, more important, what is it doing in a courtroom except as a means of chilling a debate very, very much in the public interest?
Serious debate is a serious matter -- especially when the topics are life and death, liberty and slavery. If there are false statements contained therein, I suggest Dr. Malone seek a correction, not $25 million. That's what normal people do.
But none of this falls under the rubric of normal. I get a strange feeling reading through the Material Facts that the complaint seeks to transform the heat of debate into, basically, a series of shouts and barbs about "Hitler," or "mass murderers" in order to reframe a crucial debate about the nature of totalitarianism into a kind of thought crime that some Orwellian court might even outlaw. The overall effect is quite unsettling. Even so, I don't think even at our fallen state, there is a court in America that would trammel such an important debate based on this scanty and even absurd evidence. Free speech will triumph here.
But at what cost?