Blogger’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed After Criticisms for His Conspiracy Theories

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court dismissed a defamation lawsuit Friday by a conservative blogger against members of the media who ridiculed him for his unproven allegations stating a former Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered in a political assassination.

Police said Seth Rich apparently died in a botched robbery. Former President Donald Trump supporter Matthew Couch said Rich was killed in retaliation as he prepared to reveal embarrassing facts about top Democrats.

Couch sued after being called an “internet troll” and “internet bully” in the media.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, saying Couch failed to prove the “actual malice” needed for defamation.

Rich’s 2016 murder in downtown Washington, D.C., remains unsolved.

Couch sued Yahoo News parent Verizon Communications Inc., journalist Michael Isikoff and National Public Radio.

To prove defamation, Couch would need to show that the media representatives “either knew their statements were false, had high awareness that the statements were probably false, or had serious doubts about the accuracy of the statements,” U.S. Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker wrote in the court’s opinion.

“He has not done so,” Walker said.

The three-judge panel of the Circuit Court described Couch as a “limited purpose public figure” because of his political commentaries published on the internet.

Couch’s X account has accumulated more than 724,000 followers. His blog is called The D.C. Patriot.

The “actual malice” standard found in Supreme Court rulings to prove defamation bans public figures from recovering damages unless they can prove the media spread falsehoods about them knowing the statements were false or with reckless disregard of the truth.

The standard is intended to protect free speech on issues of public importance.

In Couch’s case, he was criticized for his podcasts in which he said Rich was murdered after stealing emails showing the Democratic National Committee favored Hillary Clinton over independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as their candidate for the 2016 presidential election. He said Clinton directed the assassination.

Couch said Rich sold the emails to WikiLeaks. He also said Rich’s family tried to cover up his murder.

Couch’s anger was directed primarily at Isikoff, chief investigative reporter for Yahoo! News. Verizon is the former parent company of Yahoo! News.

Isikoff’s podcast series “Conspiracyland” took aim at fringe theories that Clinton ordered Rich to be killed.

In two podcasts that mentioned Couch, Isikoff interviewed people who knew him. They said Couch harassed them and accused them of conspiring in Rich’s death.

Isikoff described Couch as an “internet conspiracy entrepreneur,” “internet troll,” “internet crankster,” “internet bully,” “member of the alt-right” and “associate of a Southern confederate.” 

Isikoff appeared on a National Public Radio program to discuss his podcasts.

Couch’s August 2020 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia says that “Isikoff engaged in one of the most irresponsible smear campaigns in contemporary journalism.”

The lawsuit adds, “Isikoff is no ordinary ‘journalist.’ Rather, he is a shameless partisan hack, who was personally responsible for helping spread the baseless conspiracy theory that Donald Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election. As this conspiracy theory has collapsed, Isikoff and others in the media have sought to attack and discredit anyone, including plaintiff, associated with any investigations that would potentially undermine the official narrative promoted by Washington, D.C., insiders to destroy Donald Trump.”

The D.C. Circuit said Isikoff was merely expressing his opinion, which is legally a matter of his discretion protected by the First Amendment.

Isikoff said in a post on X that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment & the truth.”

The case is Matthew Couch v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and X.