Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[benji]

The real cancel culture:

One of the teenagers … posted [the video] to their personal TikTok account. TikTok removed the video from its site, but before it was removed, the video was downloaded and posted on other social media platforms, including Twitter, Reddit, and LinkedIn.

On April 26, 2021, Griffin republished the video on Twitter and stated "If this is Sam Johnson in Nashville, Tennessee, the CEO of @VisuWell, healthcare-tech-growth strategist, married to Jill Johnson where they may reside in Franklin, Tennessee, it seems like he's dying to be online famous." Plaintiffs allege that Griffin's tweet republishing the video caused it to go viral. After Griffin published her first tweet, Griffin responded to a comment posted by the teenager who videoed the incident and stated that she was "proud to be any [sic] ally" and "[l]et me know if there's anything I can do to help."

Later that day, Griffin published another tweet attaching two images of Mr. Johnson's face and writing: "Who is? THIS [sic] Sam Johnson of Franklin Tennessee [sic]?"

On April 26, 2021, VisuWell published the following statements, among others:

We unequivocally condemn the behavior exhibited by Sam Johnson in a recent video widely circulated on social media.

After investigating the matter and speaking to individuals involved, the VisuWell BOD has chosen to terminate Mr. Johnson from his position as CEO, effective immediately.

Later that same day, Griffin published another statement that "the nation will remain vigilant" and asked VisuWell if Mr. Johnson had been removed from his position on the Board of Directors. VisuWell replied to Griffin's post and stated "terminated." The next day, on April 27, 2021, VisuWell published another post that stated "Mr. Johnson is no longer employed by VisuWell in any capacity." Plaintiffs contend that VisuWell officially terminated Mr. Johnson's employment contract on April 26, 2021.

Plaintiffs allege that after Griffin posted the video, they received "countless online threats—including threats of rape and death—as a foreseeable and proximate result of Ms. Griffin's call-to-action to make Mr. and Mrs. Johnson 'online famous'."

While speech about public concerns is often entitled to "special protection," for matters of purely private significance, First Amendment protections are "often less rigorous." Snyder v. Phelps (2011).

Here, Griffin seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' tort claims on the basis that her speech was a matter of public concern. Specifically, without explaining how or why, Griffin asserts that her social media statements ["]unquestionably addressed a matter of public concern [and are therefore] entitled to "special protection" under the First Amendment." …

Turning to this case, accepting Plaintiffs' allegations as true, Griffin's public statements did not involve a subject of "legitimate news interest" or one of "concern to the public." Instead, Plaintiffs allege not that Griffin made false or defamatory statements, but rather that Griffin provided commentary about Mr. Johnson resulting in damages under a variety of tort theories….

Here, Plaintiffs allege that Griffin caused an edited video clip to "go viral" and added her own commentary; as noted above, the clip involved interactions between Mr. Johnson and teenage prom-goers in a Franklin, Tennessee hotel lobby. Plaintiffs allege that the video clip was removed from the original social media platform, TikTok, only to be included later by Griffin's Twitter account, along with her commentary.

So much for the FREEZE PEACH crowd when it's a marginalized person under attack by fascists.