Defamation By The Defamers

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – There are two interesting defamation lawsuits working their way through the judicial system that become interesting in whom each names as a defendant; in both cases it is someone who holds themselves up as the pure anti-hate people.

One involves an old favorite punching-bag of ours, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the other is the attorney general of the state of New York, Letitia James.

The SPLC, as you may recall, was once an honored civil rights organization that was in the forefront of equal protection under the law. Sometime after the enactment of strong civil rights legislation — on both state and federal levels — followed by favorable results from the courts, the organization turned its attention to an expanding role. It started to label other organizations it felt that opposed civil rights as hate groups.

Now it wasn’t just the skinheads, KKK, and the neo-Nazis that it went after, if was almost any group that opposed some aspect of the SPLC’s notion of full civil engagement. Thus, legal and religious groups that opposed the LGBTQ+ platform, especially those involving trans-genderism, were cited as “hate groups” and placed on its annual hate report and its now famous “hate map.”

One such group was the Dustin Inman Society (DIS). The organization is named after a 16-year-old boy who was killed in a car accident when his car was rammed from behind by a Mexican citizen who was in the country illegally. The accident also sent Dustin’s parents to a hospital where his mother was in a five-week coma and spent the rest of her life in a wheelchair.

Charged with the death of Dustin, the driver of the other car escaped police and ran to Mexico where his whereabouts are unknown. Despite being in the country illegally, he had been able to obtain a state drivers’ license by using his Mexican birth certificate and Mexican Consular ID card.

The Society using his name lobbies for stricter, broader enforcement and other measures to curb illegal entry into the United States, and to stop aid to illegals. It describes itself in its pleadings as: “DIS is a nonprofit Georgia corporation with a stated mission and goal of promoting the enforcement of immigration laws in the United States.”

In 2018 the SPLC classified DIS as an “anti-immigrant hate group” and subsequently published a web page profile on DIS in which it claimed that DIS and its founder “pose as an organization concerned about immigration issues, yet focuses on vilifying all immigrants.”

That resulted in DIS filing a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC for making hateful comments against it by the organization that is famous for calling others haters. The matter, of course, is tied-up in other legal issues, but the SPLC did file a motion to dismiss the case against it. In April the court denied the motion and the case continues.

Now we don’t know what the outcome will be but it sure feels right that the SPLC is getting some of its own treatment. The case is being tried in the federal district court for the Middle District of Alabama.

A similar thing is happening in New York. The state attorney general there is Letitia James, who you might remember campaigned on a promise to “get” Donald Trump, and, to a degree, is trying to keep that promise.

She is also a hardened pro-abortion politician and will often use her time to disparage pro-lifers. That has gotten her into a bit of trouble recently.

It seems that last June Ms. James held a news conference to announce a new civil lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and several members of the Red Rose staff. For those of you who do not know, Red Rose is a pro-life ministry that will sometimes enter abortion facilities with a message of life in an attempt to dissuade mothers-to-be from terminating the life of their children.

Obviously there have been several confrontations between Red Rose folks and the facilities they entered and the police who were summoned. Interestingly, while many Red Rose supporters have joined in picketing and protests outside abortion clinics, not all have ever attempted to enter a clinic.

The lawsuit Ms. James unveiled alleged that the defendants violated the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). The lawsuit principally sought to create a 30-foot buffer zone around abortion centers, thus restricting the location of any picketers and barring their access to the clinic itself. It contained no allegations of terrorism. But during the press conference Ms. James called those associated with Red Rose, including those who have never entered or attempted to enter a clinic, “terrorists” and Red Rose a “terrorist group.”

Two members of the Red Rose group who live in Michigan filed a defamation suit against Ms. James, in her personal capacity as well as her official capacity as attorney general.

“Defendant James’ labeling of those who associate with Red Rose Rescue as ‘terrorists’ is grotesque and absurd on its face; it is reckless in the extreme; it harms Plaintiffs’ public reputation; and it is an unconstitutional dereliction of Defendant James’ sworn duty to uphold the United States and New York Constitutions and to provide equal justice under the law to all persons and organizations regardless of their religious beliefs and views,” said the plaintiffs’ lawyer David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

The suit alleges: “As set forth in this Complaint, Defendant James has disseminated false and defamatory information about Plaintiffs, which irreparably harmed Plaintiffs’ interests and will continue to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Absent relief from this Court, Defendant James will continue to take action that unlawfully designates and targets Plaintiffs as terrorists.”

The main claim against Ms. James is that of defamation. Which, the suit claims: “Defendant James’ labelling Plaintiffs as ‘terrorists’ and belonging to a ‘terrorist group’ exposes Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion, and it induces an evil and unsavory opinion in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community, causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ reputations.”

The lawsuit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and five million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Again, it only seems fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. A long way to go on this yet, but it will be fun to follow. The case is in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)