re: X sues Media Matters after report about ads next to antisemitic content

quote:

---

Not if your intent is to interfere with a contract

---

quote:

---

Consistent with the protections provided by the First Amendment, many courts have confirmed that a defendant’s motive is irrelevant if the statements made are truthful. See Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1996) (“a true representation does not become wrongful just because the defendant is motivated by a black desire to hurt plaintiff’s business“); C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Wordtronics Corp., 561 A.2d 694 (Law Div. 1989) (“Defendant’s motive is not relevant to the determination of this case. . . . It is not improper to give truthful information to a customer about someone else’s product, and this is so even if the purpose is to interfere with an existing or prospective contractual relationship.”); Worldwide Primates v. McGreal, 26 F.3d 1089, 1092 (11th Cir. Fla. 1994) (“Worldwide could establish no cause of action for interference with its business relationship with Delta when all McGreal did was give Dr. Gerone truthful information.”); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988) (“in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment[;] . . . even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression is protected by the First Amendment.”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964) (plaintiff’s “interest in private reputation is overborne by the larger public interest, secured by the Constitution in the dissemination of truth”; “Truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions.”); State v. Burnham, 9 N. H. 34, 42-43, 31 Am. Dec. 217, 221 (1837) (“If upon a lawful occasion for making a publication, he has published the truth, and no more, there is no sound principle which can make him liable, even if he was actuated by express malice.”).

---