Speech and Religion: The Defamation Suit Against Rachel Maddow:

[oilpro2]

The Defamation Suit Against Rachel Maddow:Why It Should Fail

Bradlee Dean is a Christian preacher and metal music performer who calls homosexuality an “abomination”; blames the “homosexual agenda” for America’s problems; and claims to seek the restoration of Judeo-Christian and family values. Recently, Dean sued television host and commentator Rachel Maddow, NBC Universal, and MSNBC for defamation based on two segments that Maddow had aired about Dean, and additional comments that Maddow had made about Dean on her show. (The material on Dean in the two segments, which together constitute a single YouTube video, starts at 1:58.) Dean also sued the Minnesota Independent and its reporter, but here, I’ll focus on the Maddow claims.

On April 16, Maddow’s attorneys moved to get Dean’s defamation case dismissed now, at the very beginning of the litigation, under D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP law. (SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation; Anti-SLAPP laws were passed to address the problem of frivolous defamation suits, the real motive of which was to silence the speaker.)

More analysis here:

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/04/30/the-defamation-suit-against-rachel-maddow

[pipoman]

1. I see this, not as a religion issue,

but as a power of the media issue. I think we should be careful about enacting legislation shielding the media from civil actions. The media has incredible money and incredible power, private citizens often have neither. There should be recourse available to the 99% to make civil claims against the media giants when they infringe on people's rights or there is a question if they did.

[struggle4progress]

2. Meh. He has a rock band and a radio show? He's a public figure. So he's

gotta prove not only that Rachel was inaccurate (because truth is an absolute defense here), he's gotta prove that she was deliberately or recklessly inaccurate, and beyond that he's gotta prove she had malicious intent (both because he's a public figure). If he clears all those hurdles, he still needs to prove some damage to his reputation (because there's no case if there's no material issue).

If this gets very far before a judge, then I say quick judgement for the defendant with costs awarded.