Judge Dismisses Capitol Protester's $100M CNN Lawsuit
A Chesapeake, Virginia man who posted pictures and videos to Facebook of himself participating in the January 6 insurrection attempt admitted guilt in court on Thursday. Above: Jacob Hiles. Mugshot.
A Virginia man who “meandered” around the Capitol building after the January 6, 2021, riot has lost his $100 million lawsuit against CNN.
Virginia federal judge Arenda Wright Allen, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed the case on Monday before it reached trial.
Jacob Hiles, a charter boat captain from Virginia Beach, alleged that CNN defamed him in an online article published on October 15, 2021, about rioters at the Capitol building.
The article’s sub-headline read: “Man wanted to start ‘a revolution’ on January 6.”
According to an FBI affidavit, Hiles posted numerous videos and photos on his Facebook page on the day supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol building. The posts included a selfie he shared that morning with the caption: “Feelin cute…might start a revolution later. IDK”
Hiles was wearing a mask and ski goggles and a sweatshirt that said “F*ck Antifa.”
Hiles’ lawsuit alleged that the CNN subheading and the article’s contents were defamatory because “they falsely accuse Hiles of felonious criminal activity of which he was not charged or convicted, either directly or indirectly.”
He was initially seeking $37 million in compensatory damages but later sought $100 million.
While Hiles was not involved in rioting, in September 2021, he pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building on the day of the riot. He was sentenced in December 2021 to two years of probation.
Newsweek reached out to attorneys for Hiles and CNN for comment via email on Tuesday.
In her ruling on Monday, Wright Allen noted that following the riots, “hundreds to potentially thousands of other demonstrators who did not participate in or encourage the violent riots formed a line to the Capitol Building and walked, illegally, inside the building at approximately 2:50 p.m.”
She said that most, including the plaintiff, “peacefully meandered through the Capitol Building for mere minutes…before exiting of their own volition.”
“Most, again including Plaintiff, did not commit violence or other crimes reflective of rioting or participating in an insurrection or coordinated effort to overthrow the U.S. Government.”
Nevertheless, CNN had a right to report on the issues involved, she said.
The plaintiff had claimed that CNN had deliberately removed the phrase IDK (“I Don’t Know”) from his post about maybe starting a revolution at the Capitol.
His lawyers said that CNN did this to make Hiles sound serious about wanting to start a revolution.
Wright Allen noted that the only difference between Hiles’ Facebook post and what CNN reported was the phrase IDK.
She said, “This minor discrepancy is not sufficient to show that CNN abused the fair report privilege.”
“The phrase ‘IDK’ serves the same function in the post as the word ‘might’ and the term ‘feelin cute’—it tends to indicate that the poster may not be entirely serious about what he is saying. By retaining two of these softening terms, CNN’s abridgement maintains the essence of both the content and tone of the post and is thus substantially accurate and a fair abridgement,” she wrote.
Related Articles
Start your unlimited Newsweek trial