Patrick Clancy Didn’t Kill His Kids—and Can Sue Crackpots Who Say He Did

“Patrick’s the one who did it. Not Lindsay. Patrick did it.” So said Lisa Rinna, a star of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, last month on TikTok, accusing Patrick Clancy of murdering his three children, who were in fact killed by Patrick’s ex-wife, Lindsay, a fact Lindsay admitted and her lawyers never disputed.

Our public square has become a defamation orgy. “He was having an affair, he plotted, drugged her, made her crazy, killed their kids,” said another post about Patrick Clancy, this one repeated over and over on Instagram. “Tried to kill her. When she didn’t die, he convinced her she killed them. Framed her. Sent her to prison.”

Last week, one of Patrick Clancy’s attorneys released a statement threatening legal action against the “blatant and baseless falsehoods” spread against Patrick Clancy online: “Enough is enough.” But could such a case actually succeed? And could it be a reckoning that stems the tide of online defamation?

Clancy could win, but he can’t stop the tide because it is driven by two phenomena that are basically untouchable. Here’s why.

First, platform immunity. If The New York Times runs an opinion piece libeling someone, the Times can be sued for damages. And if NBC News runs a commercial libeling someone, NBC can be sued for damages. But if TikTok or Instagram carry a libelous post or advertisement, they cannot be sued. They have immunity under the famous Section 230, a federal statutory provision enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 under which social media platforms bear no legal responsibility for almost any ads or user content they carry.