You’d better stick to coal baron Bob Murray’s script, unless you want to find yourself facing off against him in court.
Murray, the CEO of the Ohio-based Murray Energy Corporation, has a history of violating mine safety regulations and financially supporting politicians — including President Donald Trump — who advance agendas that enrich coal executives while leaving miners in harm’s way. Murray also has a history of suing journalists, media outlets, and activists who call out his unethical practices.
That’s where the ACLU comes in.
Over the last 15 years, Murray has sued everyone from to to . And after a recent broadcast, he added talk-show host John Oliver to that list.
On June 18, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” did a story on the coal industry. During the , John Oliver took aim at the practices of many in the coal industry, including both Murray and Don Blankenship, who was recently released from federal prison after being convicted of conspiring to violate federal mine safety laws.
Oliver discussed the damage done to coal mining communities when jobs are in decline. He also recalled a involving one of Murray’s mines, which killed nine miners and by a congressional inquiry to have been preventable. Oliver, a comedian, also criticized Murray with more creative language, calling him a “geriatric Dr. Evil,” referencing complaints Murray has received from his miners. He specifically recounted an instance in which one of Murray’s employees wrote “Eat Shit Bob” on a returned check for an unwanted $3 bonus and had a human-sized squirrel named Mr. Nutterbutter come on stage to present Murray a check for “3 acorns and 18 cents.”
Murray responded by suing John Oliver and HBO for defamation over what he insists are false claims about the coal industry and his company. His lawsuit also references hurt feelings over the personal insults, claiming that John Oliver’s broadcast upset him more than anything else ever had. , and as we quoted in our we filed in the lawsuit, “[I]s he really saying that a late night British comedian on a premium channel has caused him more stress than the time that one of his mines collapsed and killed a group of his employees? If so . . . that’s . . . weird.”
As we write in our brief, “It is apt that one of Plaintiffs’ objections to the show is about a human-sized squirrel named Mr. Nutterbutter, because this case is nuts.” Satire, hyperbole, offensive speech, and comedy are all protected by the First Amendment — that’s especially true with regards to speech about public figures on matters of public concern. Comedians like John Oliver and Stephen Colbert don’t just have large audiences — they have large audiences that care about the important issues facing our country. Courts should never be used as a sword to prevent those audiences from receiving information because powerful people find it objectionable.
Unfortunately, Murray is not the only one unleashing frivolous lawsuits to silence this kind of speech. This past February, ACLU clients Esther Calhoun, Ben Eaton, Mary Schaeffer, and Ellis Long reached a successful settlement with the local landfill that sued them for a whopping $30 million for speaking up about the environmental harms that landfill was causing their community. Despite initially trying to sue those community activists into silence, the landfill ultimately agreed to recognize our clients’ right to speak out.
Both cases demonstrate how critical free speech is to the defense of matters as important as environmental justice and workplace safety. It’s a basic constitutional principle — that apparently bears repeating, including to our president — that you don’t get to sue media organizations because you don’t like their coverage. It’s not surprising that powerful people are irate over John Oliver’s coverage, which has been — that’s one of the reasons it’s so important to defend it.
As we note in , “Anyone Can Legally Say ‘Eat Shit, Bob!'” References to Dr. Evil, giant talking squirrels, and returned checks are all protected by the First Amendment. Whether coal tycoons like it or not.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.