Judge hits Project Veritas with $150,000 bill after it tries to kill free speech

Walter Einenkel

Daily Kos Staff

Thursday August 11, 2022 · 2:15 PM PDT

2022/08/11 · 14:15

ORLANDO, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 24: James Oâ€™Keefe, President of Project Veritas, speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at The Rosen Shingle Creek on February 24, 2022 in Orlando, Florida. CPAC, which began in 1974, is an annual political conference attended by conservative activists and elected officials. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) — Not two, James; $149,596.90.

TAGS

Edit Tags

Tag History

Done Editing Tags

Project Veritas, run by ridiculous GOP charlatan James O’Keefe, has been reeling lately. There have been questions surrounding the legality of their unethical reporting practices. They have claimed to have been preyed upon by “fraudsters.” And the climate change Project Veritas right-wingers are in denial of seems to have tried to drag its headquarters back into the sea.

In recent months, Project Veritas has tried to do two things: pretend that they are journalists whose First Amendment rights are being trampled on by a politicized federal government; and sue The New York Times and a Stanford University blog to trample on First Amendment rights. So far, Project Veritas has failed to squash real journalists’ rights to free speech and press.

In May, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly ruled that Project Veritas’ claims that Stanford University’s school blog, reporting on how debunked every aspect of Veritas’ election fraud claims were, did not amount to defamation. In fact, they were easily provable facts and valid opinions concerning Project Veritas’ attempts to misinform the public about election fraud claims.

On August 4, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly finalized the ruling in the only way groups like Project Veritas would understand.

Judge Zilly ruled that Project Veritas is on the hook for $149,596.90, to be exact. This is the money that Project Veritas owes to pay off Stanford University’s legal fees. It is an important part of this process because the frivolous nature of the lawsuit is very specifically how shadowy-backed groups like Project Veritas try and stop free speech. In his ruling, Judge Zilly pointed out that Stanford’s accounting of what this ridiculous lawsuit cost them was clearly very fair.

Zilly also pointed out once again that Project Veritas’ legal arguments here were as vacuous as every other argument they’ve made in court. One such argument was Veritas’ disputing $20,000 worth of Stanford’s legal fees as they were accrued during research the University’s lawyers did for motions that did not ultimately find their way into the decision. “Although the Court did not ultimately rule on the issue, it would be error for the Court to treat alternative arguments that the Court did not reach as a basis for reducing an attorney fees award.”

One of the arguments Veritas’ lawyers made to try and get out of paying the legal fees was to say they didn’t believe anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation”) could be applied federally. Opposing anti-SLAPP laws, saying that they should not apply federally, is arguably the single most anti-free speech position one can take in court.

Enjoy this clip of James O’Keefe’s colleague getting caught trying to set up the Washington Post, with humorous commentary provided by The Majority Report.

YouTube Video

Pot, have you seen kettle? Project Veritas says ‘fraudsters’ stole their money

Sad! Right-wing ‘undercover’ disinformation group Project Veritas underwater after Ida hits New York

Judge hits Project Veritas with $150,000 bill after it tries to kill free speech

Comments are closed on this story.