By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump filed a civil lawsuit against the Des Moines Register, pollster J. Ann Selzer, and their respective parent companies, alleging “brazen election interference” due to a pre-election poll showing him trailing. The suit stems from Selzer’s poll predicting a three-point deficit for Trump in Iowa, which he ultimately won by fourteen points. Trump claims the poll was fraudulent and constituted election interference, a claim Selzer denies. This action follows a recent defamation lawsuit settlement with ABC News and is part of Trump’s broader strategy to target perceived media adversaries.
Read the original article here
Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer over a pre-election poll showing Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa is a significant event, sparking widespread debate and concern. The lawsuit alleges “brazen election interference,” focusing on the poll’s publication and its potential impact on the election outcome. This action raises fundamental questions about the limits of free speech and the potential chilling effect on future polling and reporting.
The core issue revolves around whether a news organization can be sued for publishing a poll, regardless of its accuracy or intent. The argument that publishing a prediction, even an incorrect one, constitutes “election interference” is unconventional and raises concerns about setting a dangerous precedent. Many are comparing this to someone being sued for an incorrect prediction in a casual conversation – a scenario that seems absurd.
Critics argue this lawsuit is a tactic to intimidate media outlets and pollsters into self-censorship, discouraging unfavorable reporting. The potential financial burden of defending against such lawsuits, even if ultimately meritless, can be considerable, forcing smaller organizations to settle or potentially face bankruptcy. This creates an uneven playing field, silencing dissenting voices and undermining the role of a free press.
The timing of the lawsuit, just before the election and following Trump’s victory, further fuels concerns about its motivation. Some speculate the lawsuit is an attempt to silence critics and suppress any discussion of unfavorable poll data. Others see it as a continuation of Trump’s broader pattern of attacking the media and using legal action to target perceived enemies.
The lawsuit raises serious concerns about the implications for free speech and the integrity of the electoral process. The fear is that this will lead to a chilling effect on reporting, potentially influencing how news organizations cover future elections. The ability of the press to act as a check on power is undeniably compromised when news organizations are afraid to publish information critical of powerful individuals, even if this information is based on seemingly objective data, such as polls.
The legal basis of the lawsuit is questionable. While defamation lawsuits are possible, this case relies on a novel argument linking poll publication to election interference. The high cost of legal battles, even those without merit, effectively silences smaller publications and can create a system where only the wealthiest institutions can afford to defend themselves. Such legal tactics are often described as SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), intended to suppress dissent through financial intimidation.
Many believe this action is a form of authoritarianism. They argue that the intention is to control the narrative and suppress any information that challenges Trump’s version of events. The lawsuit is seen as an attempt to shape public opinion through intimidation, not persuasion.
In conclusion, the lawsuit against the Des Moines Register underscores deeper anxieties about the role of the media in a democracy, particularly during times of political polarization. The potential impact goes far beyond the specific poll in question. The long-term consequences for media freedom and the public’s access to information remain to be seen, but the initial reaction has been one of concern and condemnation. The case’s outcome will have implications for journalistic integrity and the freedom of the press. The broader question this raises is whether such legal tactics will be tolerated in a society that values free speech and transparent elections.