Don’t SLAPP. It costs you a lot of Jesus-money.
A huge victory for bloggers was handed down on Friday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court ruled that “matters of public interest” rise to the same level as public figure status in defamation lawsuits, even if the individual subject is not a public figure.
This ruling makes the threshold for defamation suits involving private individuals the same threshold as public figure status if the matters are “in the public interest” according to the ruling.
In the Calvary Chapel Pastor Bob Grenier lawsuit, this has major implications as the lower court judge already ruled that the matters of child abuse and church abuse, etc. constitute “matters of public interest.”
This is important because the lower court judge appeared to allow a defamation suit by Calvary Chapel Pastor Bob Grenier’s wife to move forward since the judge deemed her a private individual and accepted her claims prima facia.
Now that the Court has ruled that matters “in the public interest” are on par with “public figure” threshold in defamation suits, it is “not likely” that Grenier’s wife would prevail, according to sources, which means the Anti-SLAPP law should apply.
It is the opinion of Calvary Chapel Abuse that the case currently in Appeals was strong without yesterday’s ruling, and now we believe the odds are extremely unlikely that Calvary Chapel Grenier will prevail.
Link to AP article here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BLOGGER_DEFAMATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-17-17-59-06
Link to the Court’s opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf
The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove “actual malice” and “negligence” which according to legal sources:
“In a legal sense, “actual malice” has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined “actual malice” in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either
- knowing that it is false; or
- acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.
It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.”–Digital Media Law Project.