Ventura vs. Kyle: Claims Against Fallen Hero
Abstract
Chris Kyle is a Former Navy Seal who served four tours in the Iraq War. He is a celebrated military member who has the most kills by a sniper in American military history with an astounding one hundred and sixty kills. Before his death in 2013, Kyle released a book which was pretty much a release of his memoirs in the process of becoming a Seal and his tours in Iraq. In this book there is a confrontation where Kyle claims he “decks” a man who he later would identify as former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. Ventura went on to file a defamation suit against the estate of the late Chris Kyle and was awarded $1.8 million. A defamation suit is the means by which an individual can be awarded funds if he or she thinks their reputation has been slandered and a jury agrees. For a defendant to be found guilty of libel against a public figure the plaintiff has to prove the defendant had actual malice towards the plaintiff. Actual malice is a standard decided in the case of The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Taya Kyle is the widow of Chris Kyle. She has appealed the decision made by a jury that awarded Ventura $1.8 million. Keywords: Actual malice, libel, defamation
Chris Kyle, who is affectionately referred to as the “American Sniper,” released his autobiography book entitled “American Sniper.” In this book, Kyle mentions he punched a guy in a bar who made disparaging comments against Navy Seals deployed at the time. In the book he referred to the guy he punched as “Scruff Face.” The comments made by the character “Scruff Face” were extremely Anti-American. According to Kyle, “Scruff Face” said the Seals were murdering men, women, and children and deserved to “lose a few.” Those remarks according to Kyle, are what took him over the edge and made him punch “Scruff Face.” Kyle went on to say, he had no way to know for sure “Scruff Face” showed up to Navy Seal graduation with a black eye. When Kyle attributed Jesse Ventura his “Scruff Face” character in his book, he defamed Ventura’s name to the public, which gave Ventura cause to sue for Kyle for libel.
In an interview on Sirius XM Radio, Kyle addresses the passage in his book that mentions “Scruff Face” and identifies the character as Ventura.
Ventura sued for defamation because his reputation took a major hit after being attributed to those anti-American comments about the war in Iraq and the military. Ventura also took the remarks attributed to him personally because he has served in the military for several years including time spent in the Vietnam War. According to Ventura, the comradery he once had with the military community has been dismantled by the effects of Kyle’s book on his reputation. He does not feel that he will ever be accepted at military reunion events ever again because of the impact of Kyle’s book on his reputation.
The above photo is an example of the comradery that develops in the military and shows why Ventura was hurt by the remarks Kyle attributed too him. Kyle’s remarks described Ventura as not caring for his military family even going as far as to say Ventura hoped for some of them to die in the war.
Defamation is essentially the act of making false statements regarding an individual that in turn damages that individual’s reputation. To combat defamation, libel and slander laws have been put into effect. These laws allow an individual who has had their name falsely accused to restore damages made to their reputation. The laws also give monetary compensation to the individuals who have had damages to their reputation that affect their livelihood. In the past, libel and slander were viewed as two similar yet separate acts. Libel and slander, are both forms of defamation but differ in meaning. Libel is false information against an individual that is published. Slander is false information against another individual by word of mouth.
In the past, libel acts were awarded more monetary damages because the thought at that time was published information could be spread further and last longer than information passed on by word of mouth. This stance regarding awarding monetary compensation for defamation as it relates to slander and libel is no longer so solid. With the technology of today, word of mouth caught on film can travel and reach people at the same speed and effectiveness as published documentation. As a result, both can be prosecuted and rewarded without much difference in the outcome. The plaintiff is awarded for as much as he can prove he was damaged.
The footage below shows Ventura winning his defamation case against Kyle and being awarded damages for what was done to his reputation.
The plaintiff in a libel case has to prove several things before he can be awarded any compensation to his reputation. The plaintiff must prove the statement made against their reputation is a statement of fact. The statement must be an assertion of a fact versus being an opinion deemed to be negative.
For a plaintiff to win a libel case is proving the statement was published. The statement has to have been made public. Libel law states that information is considered to be published once it is printed in a periodical, said over airwaves, or posted to the internet. The information has to be known to one person other than the subject of the defamatory statement or the person who released the information. It does not have to be heard by any more than one person other than the defendant and plaintiff. In the case of Ventura v. Kyle, Kyle printed the defamatory material in his book which makes it public. Here is vidoe of Kyle talking about punching Jesse Ventura.
The plaintiff also has to prove the libelous material is directed towards them specifically. This proof is identification. The plaintiff has to prove the remarks are about them and that it is their reputation being negatively affected. For this to happen a publisher does not have to intentionally identify the plaintiff in publication. All that has to happen for identification to be established is for one person other than the plaintiff or defender to identify the plaintiff as the subject of the published statement. During an interview on Sirius XM, Kyle identified the character in his book “Scruff Face” as Jesse Ventura.
The plaintiff has to successfully prove the content is defamatory in nature. The plaintiff must prove that damage has been done to their reputation by the defendant’s published statement. When Kyle attributed the statement the seals “deserved to lose some” to Ventura in his book, he damaged the reputation of Jesse Ventura. Ventura also had to prove the statement was false. In the past the defendant was responsible for proving his statement was true. The burden of proof has now been placed upon the plaintiff, who has to prove the statement is false. A statement is not false in the eyes of the law if a few minor errors are made in the statement. If the statement is true to its core then it will be considered substantial truth and cannot be made libelous.
The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant is at fault for publishing the defamatory statement. The subject of fault is broken into two separate proofs depending on the category of plaintiff. If the plaintiff is a private individual, the plaintiff must prove negligence on the part of the defendant for fault to be established. If the defendant is a public official or is an individual in the public eye such as Jesse Ventura, the plaintiff must prove actual malice.
Actual malice is proving the defendant knew the statement was false and published it anyway, or that the defendant acted in reckless disregard for the truth. Jesse Ventura successfully proved that Kyle acted with actual malice by not publishing true information. Ventura provided witnesses who were at the bar the night Kyle alleged he punched Ventura for disparaging remarks about the war in Iraq and Navy Seals. The witnesses stated they never recalled a fight or seeing Ventura with a black eye.
Chris Kyle made a huge legal error when he identified the “Scruff Face” character as Jesse Ventura. The disparaging remarks attributed to Ventura were very damaging to his reputation especially being that he is a public figure. Ventura was awarded $500,000 in damages as well as $1.345 million for unjust enrichment. The jury found that the Kyle book sold well in part due to the story of Kyle told of punching out Ventura, which Ventura proved to be false. Kyle’s widow Taya Kyle, is appealing the decision.
References
Eccher, M. (2014, December 23). Jesse Ventura’s defamation challenged by ‘American Sniper’ widow. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27194901/jesse-venturas-defamation- challenged-by-american-sniper-widow
Feldman, J. (2015, February 3). Jesse Ventura on People Calling Chris Kyle a Hero: ‘The Nazis Have Heroes’ Too. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.mediaite.com/online/jesse-ventura-on-people-calling-chris-kyle-a-hero-the- nazis-have-heroes-too/
Press, A. (2014, November 26). Minnesota: Ventura’s Defamation Award Upheld. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/minnesota-venturas- defamation-award-upheld.html?ref=topics&_r=0
Howerton, J. (2015, January 28). Jesse Ventura Reveals the Reason He Refuses to See ‘American Sniper’ — It’s Going to Spark Some Anger. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/28/jesse-ventura-reveals-the-reason-he-refuses- to-see-american-sniper-its-going-to-spark-some-anger/
Press, A. (2015, March 5). ‘American Sniper’ Chris Kyle’s Widow Not Conceding After $1.8 Defamation Verdict in Favor of Jesse Ventura. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/05/american-sniper-chris-kyles-widow-not- conceding-after-1–8-defamation-verdict-in-favor-of-jesse-ventura/
Gibbons, T. (1996). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (Vol. 16, pp. 587–615). Oxford University Press.
Privacy, Defamation, and the First Amendment: The Implications of Time, Inc. v. Hill. (1967, May 1). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1120969?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=defamation&searchText=suit&searchText=celebrity&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?Query=defamation+suit+celebrity&prq=defamation+suit&group=none&wc=on&acc=on&so=rel&hp=25&fc=off&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Anderson, D. (1991). Is Libel Law Worth Reforming? In University of Pennsylvania Law Review (Vol. 140, pp. 487–554). The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
Defamation Immunity. (1951). In The University of Chicago Law Review (Vol. 18, pp. 591–597). The University of Chicago Law Review.
Stancik, E. (1978). Columbia Law Review (Vol. 78, pp. 448–467). Columbia Law Review Association.
