Church sues woman over negative review

[Texashiker]

Woman post review of church on website, calling the church "cult like".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...ng-bad-reviews-church-online/?test=latestnews

Church sues woman saying the review is defamation.

Sounds to me like the church is butt hurt that someone spoke their opinion.

 

[corwin]

Smith, who says "the story of spiritual abuse needs to be told," described O'Neal and his church outside Portland as "creepy" and "cult-like."

Yep...it's a cult:hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

While I think it is silly for them to sue (as it only brings forth negative attention), it does seem to fit the definition of defamation (provided it is not true).

Defamation is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are subcategories of defamation.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/defamation-and-libel/

The specifics are dependant upon each state, but here are the rules for NJ (from the same source):

Under New Jersey law, defamation is defined as “(1) a defamatory statement of fact; (2) concerning the plaintiff; (3) which was false; (4) which was communicated to a person or persons other than the plaintiff; (5) with actual knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity or with negligence in failing to ascertain the truth or falsity; and (6) which caused damage.” Huertas v. United States Dep't of Educ., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89903, 17-20 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2009)

It is because of this:

O'Neal claims in his lawsuit that Smith's use of words like "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation.

They may have felt these things were true, but unless they actually verified them to be true they will probably be found guilty.

 

[sactoking]

They may have felt these things were true, but unless they actually verified them to be true they will probably be found guilty.

Not really. Defamation exists only when the statement is purported to be fact. So long as the blog was held out to be opinion they aren't defamatory.

"He's a child molester" is not the same as "He seems like a child molester".

 

[corwin]

They may have felt these things were true, but unless they actually verified them to be true they will probably be found guilty.

It would seem most all of those are pretty subjective, so good luck proving they aren't true...

 

[sygyzy]

This is not an issue of free speech but one of defamation and for that, it fits the definition perfectly.

 

[woolfe9999]

O'Neal claims in his lawsuit that Smith's use of words like "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation.

These are not statements of fact. If you call someone creepy, controlling, cult like, or abusive, those are opinions. No matter how much people argue/debate over those characterizations, they will always remain a matter of opinion. Doesn't sound like actionable defamation to me.

I notice the article mentions at least one factual statement, about the church allegedly suggesting that husbands go through their wives' closets to search for revealing clothing. That is a statement of fact that is either true or false. Either they did give such advice or they did not. See the difference?

- wolf

 

[cybrsage]

It would seem most all of those are pretty subjective, so good luck proving they aren't true...

The defamed party not have to prove they are not true, the defaming party needs to prove they did due dilligence is ascertaining that they were true.

For example, if you owned a company and I went around all over the place putting up fliers saying you molest children and dogs in secret, would you still say that you have to disprove my claim? It is a rhetorical question, of course you would not. You would demand that I prove my claim.

 

[cybrsage]

These are not statements of fact. If you call someone creepy, controlling, cult like, or abusive, those are opinions. No matter how much people argue/debate over those characterizations, they will always remain a matter of opinion. Doesn't sound like actionable defamation to me.

I notice the article mentions at least one factual statement, about the church allegedly suggesting that husbands go through their wives' closets to search for revealing clothing. That is a statement of fact that is either true or false. Either they did give such advice or they did not. See the difference?

- wolf

When talking about a church, cult like is not an opinion. Cults really do exist when talking about religion. To be called a cult is a big deal, and a very bad thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

When talking about a church, cult like is not an opinion. Cults really do exist when talking about religion. To be called a cult is a big deal, and a very bad thing.

It's definitely a "bad thing," in that it has negative connotations in our society. It being negative doesn't make it factual, however. You can call someone the nastiest names imaginable and most of them will be considered matters of opinion. For example, you can call someone an "asshole" and that will never be defamation, because it is understood that the word is not meant to suggest that the person is literally an anal orifice. It is, rather, an opinion about someone's character.

So far as "cult" goes, it may be in a grey area between fact and opinion, but I lean toward it being opinion because the line between "cult" and ordinary religion is very blurry. In common parlance, the word has a very non-specific meaning:

The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

What is bizarre or abnormal is entirely subjective. The meaning needs to be more concrete and specific for it to really be a factual assertion. The Wiki definition is common parlance. You'll discover that the dictionary definition helps the case even less because it is generally value neutral, i.e. not negative at all.

Of the four terms, that one is borderline. The rest aren't even borderline.

- wolf

 

[Lemon law]

I am not a legal expert, but its my understanding, for the church to win the to win such Lawsuit, they must prove the defendants said something demonstratively not true.

As I could legally say, I feel there is something phony and creepy about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but stating it as proven fact raises a grey area of the law.

But its also my understanding that public figures and public institutions like churches have far less protections than individuals under the law.

My guess, the church will lose the lawsuit.

 

[cybrsage]

Churches are private institutions. The public does not own them as that would violate the seperation of church and state.

 

[sactoking]

It's definitely a "bad thing," in that it has negative connotations in our society. It being negative doesn't make it factual, however. You can call someone the nastiest names imaginable and most of them will be considered matters of opinion. For example, you can call someone an "asshole" and that will never be defamation, because it is understood that the word is not meant to suggest that the person is literally an anal orifice. It is, rather, an opinion about someone's character.

So far as "cult" goes, it may be in a grey area between fact and opinion, but I lean toward it being opinion because the line between "cult" and ordinary religion is very blurry. In common parlance, the word has a very non-specific meaning:

To take it one step further she did not say "It is a cult" (which would tend to be a statement of fact) she said "It is cult-like" which means "It is like a cult". Being "like" something is inherently subjective. Is an orange "like" a grapefruit? Yes, they're both citrus fruits. But then again, no, one is orange and one is yellow.

Churches are private institutions. The public does not own them as that would violate the seperation of church and state.

Different definition of "public". In LemonLaw's case it is not the matter of ownership but the matter of visibility.

 

[spittledip]

You can review churches now? Strange days.

 

[monovillage]

They should have just killed her instead of launching a lawsuit. What the fuck is wrong with creepy cults these days?


(check your meter if you think i'm serious)

 

[cybrsage]

Different definition of "public". In LemonLaw's case it is not the matter of ownership but the matter of visibility.

Ah, my bad.

 

[woolfe9999]

To take it one step further she did not say "It is a cult" (which would tend to be a statement of fact) she said "It is cult-like" which means "It is like a cult". Being "like" something is inherently subjective. Is an orange "like" a grapefruit? Yes, they're both citrus fruits. But then again, no, one is orange and one is yellow.



Different definition of "public". In LemonLaw's case it is not the matter of ownership but the matter of visibility.

Agreed. The word "like" nudges it further into the domain of opinion rather than fact.

 

[cybrsage]

They should have just killed her instead of launching a lawsuit. What the fuck is wrong with creepy cults these days?


(check your meter if you think i'm serious)

tap tap tap

It says you are serious! Oh no, I see the army of creepy cultists lined up in a row already!!!

😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

 

[JEDIYoda]

I am not a legal expert, but its my understanding, for the church to win the to win such Lawsuit, they must prove the defendants said something demonstratively not true.

As I could legally say, I feel there is something phony and creepy about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but stating it as proven fact raises a grey area of the law.

But its also my understanding that public figures and public institutions like churches have far less protections than individuals under the law.

My guess, the church will lose the lawsuit.

As usual you cite examples that have nothing to do with anything.......

 

[Lemon law]

You can review churches now? Strange days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matter of fact we can, if a church expects to be tax exempt, they must confine themselves to certain standard of behavior and conduct.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Why sue? Pray to god to smite her with a lightning bolt or something.

Jesus used lawyers to sue people too, right?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do unto others, turn the other cheek, blah blah blah......

 

[SMOGZINN]

I notice the article mentions at least one factual statement, about the church allegedly suggesting that husbands go through their wives' closets to search for revealing clothing. That is a statement of fact that is either true or false. Either they did give such advice or they did not. See the difference?

And I think if that statement is found to be factual, the other statements will be considered fair.

When talking about a church, cult like is not an opinion. Cults really do exist when talking about religion. To be called a cult is a big deal, and a very bad thing.

As others have pointed out, the word cult has a very specific definition, and this church is almost certainly able to fit to at least some of that definition, making it 'cult-like'.

This lawsuit is nothing more the using the legal system to harass, they have to know that they don't have a legal case. If the court find in her favor, I hope it considers punitive action against the church (if that is allowed in this case)

 

[glenn1]

You can review churches now? Strange days.

I thought the same thing. Angie's List must be branching out.

 

[theeedude]

Lawsuit will be tossed. "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are all subjective, not provably false. If you can't prove a statement is false, you have no proof of defamation.