Post

This move will only draw more attention to the story. Takedown notice sometimes succeed in removing third-party ads b/c stations may conclude the risks of a defamation suit are too high. But they're immune from liability for defamation for *candidate* ads, which this one is. #StreisandEffect

kansasreflector.comRoger Marshall alleges defamation in new ad about former Kansas patient arrested while in debt • Kansas ReflectorLawyers for U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, a Republican running for reelection, sent his opponent a cease-and-desist letter demanding the Democrat stop airing an ad featuring one of the senator’s former pa...

In theory, Hamilton himself could held be liable for defamation, but even if so—huge, huge "if"—any recompense for Marshall would be years down the road (following extensive, expensive litigation). Most importantly, it would *not* result in the ad getting taken off the air before Election Day.

Here's the ad in question, by the way, in case you hadn't seen it yet.

29 reposts92 likes

And if you're curious as to why stations can be held liable for defamatory claims in third-party ads but *not* in candidate ads, we did an explainer earlier this year! It all goes back (believe it or not) to a Senate race in North Dakota ... in 1956 www.the-downballot.com/p/morning-di...