Milo’s Malicious Press Release: Will It Matter In Court?


Milo Yiannopoulos, a professional troll and proud bigot, has announced that he will self-publish the book Simon & Schuster dropped after his comments condoning child abuse surfaced earlier this year. He plans to publish the book as part of a new media venture, MILO, Inc, which he describes in a Facebook post as “a fully tooled-up talent factory and management company dedicated to the destruction of political correctness and the progressive left.”

In this release, he explains the motivation behind his project, saying:

I will spend every waking moment of the rest of my life making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists and other professional victims a living hell.


I doubt it was wise to publicly announce the malicious intent behind his company, which I assume will publish controversial statements about individuals belonging to the groups Milo lists. This announcement could make it easier for members of these groups to establish the legal elements of defamation claims against Milo and his company (assuming the company materializes; apparently, his past ventures have not).

Generally speaking, in the United States, a plaintiff bringing a defamation case in court has to prove the following elements (it varies a little by state):

  • 1) the defendant negligently published or communicated to a third party
  • 2) a false statement purporting to be true
  • 3) that resulted in harm to the plaintiff.

However, public figures and celebrities — the people Milo is likely to target, considering his trolling of actress Leslie Jones — have a higher standard to meet to win a defamation lawsuit against someone who publishes untrue statements about them. They have to prove that the defendant made the alleged defamatory statements with “actual malice.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Thanks to Milo’s press release (and probably other statements he’s made), it might be relatively easy for future plaintiffs to prove that statements published by his venture were made with “reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.” After all, the point of his venture isn’t to publish truthful information but rather to make the lives of anyone who disagrees with him “a living hell.”

Meanwhile, Milo has also announced a lawsuit of his own. He plans to sue Simon & Schuster for dropping his book. If he follows through on this threat, I question whether it will be successful.  I would assume Simon & Schuster’s contracts with authors include a “morals clause,” a provision in many entertainment contracts that generally allows a party to withdraw from the agreement when the other party engages in “bad behavior.” Then again, what kind of morals clause could Simon & Schuster have imposed on Milo when the only reason for the contract in the first place was to capitalize off of Milo’s immorality?


*Similarly, Donald Trump’s words have also been used against his actions in court. See Trump’s Words Were Again Used Against Him in Sanctuary City Ruling & Trump’s Remarks About Muslims Could Be What Ends The Travel Ban, Testimony Suggests.


  1. He was on Bill Mahar’s show recently, and he was nothing like I thought he would be. I’m so confused by all the contractions of this person. Then again, a person who is a ball of contradictions is one to watch.

  2. I can’t imagine if his venture does get off the ground that it could be remotely successful. At least I hope there is very little market for the hate he seems so intent on publishing.

    1. I hope this market doesn’t exist, but I worry that it does. How else did Donald Trump get elected? I don’t think *everyone* who voted for Trump is interested in Milo’s hateful book, but they might not be disgusted enough by him to ignore their curiosity if they see his book for sale.

  3. I’ve missed your analyses! I’m glad to finally have time to read blogs again! Troll is right, but he’s also a car crash that I can’t help but keep tabs on.

  4. He is a nasty little man, and the sooner he vanishes from the public eye, the better. In many ways, he’s much like Ann Coulter, another person I can’t stand. Both of them spew hate and negativity, and are seemingly getting rich from doing so while contributing nothing positive to society.

    1. Yes, he’s a horrible person. If he’s making any money off of his hateful conduct, he risks losing it in lawsuits and the resulting bad publicity. For now, the bad publicity seems to help him, but that might change as the public grows tired of his antics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s