The Satanic Temple Sues Newsweek for Libel

Check out the Complaint, filed today, and the article over which the lawsuit is brought, "Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit."

Comments

[F.D. Wolf]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Let them fight.

[Goju]

Crowley was probably the most well known proponent of this law, though not the originator. He wasn't connected to this Temple tho.

[Cheshire]

Need a federal anti-SLAPP law.

[wreckinball]

Oh God more yawn. Professor why won't you discuss the abuse of civil liberties of the J6 protestors?

You are literally searching for boredom.

Is it not allowed at Reason?

[AmosArch]

Also I know foreign news isn't too popular a topic here but the freezing of the bank accounts of the trucking convey using laws designed for guys who behead and blow up buildings is sort of interesting and in some ways unprecedented compared to a bunch of camera hogging atheists who just get headlines because they put the word Satanist in their name.

[benji]

I wouldn't expect American law professors to be able to comment much on Canadian law. (Especially since Canadian law has that whole "as long as the government agrees" clause to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.)

[Krayt]

Strange how many Rights of Man type declarations out there, then downstream in the document are holes big enough to drive that trucking convoy through and proceed to supress it all anyway.

This is why the US should never create a new constitution. The current one was from a unique time in history, where the powerful people wanted to stop their overlords and put them under chains forever.

Compare vs. all other revolutions and constitutions, written by the powerfuk to give themselves legal power to lord over others using the powet of the state.

Even Fortress Britain and Fortress Europe struggle, having inherited vox popuki vox dei parliamentary systems, where all power is assumed natural and unfettered to it.

Having lived with corruption for millenia, most nations' solutions is not to yoke government, but to slide thenselves in to receive the largess of bad behaviors of overlordship.

[M L]

The US already created a new constitution in a sense, what we have now bears little resemblance to the original meaning.

[benji]

Have you tried simply starting your own blog about things you're interested in?

[apedad]

Abuse of civil liberties of the J6 protestors you say?

If there's been abuse of their (or anyone's), civil liberties then I sincerely hope they use all legal means to fight that abuse. (not sarc)

But if you mean you just don't like the legal results of their J6 actions, then it sucks to be them (and you).

[John F. Carr]

Defamatory to the Christian temple, but to the Satanic temple? Wouldn't you expect orgies there?

[John F. Carr]

On the merits,

A complaint to a state agency was imprecisely described as a "lawsuit".

An allegedly permanent Twitter ban was described as a temporary suspension.

Allegations of "leaders posing happily with major alt-right media figures" are said to be defamation per se although the complaint did not deny the posing, only denying that the organization is
"affiliated with the alt-right".

That's by page 8 of 33 and I've had enough. Send in Jesus on his dinosaur to kick their asses.

[Goju]

John Seems to me that the founder of the Satanic Temple, Anton LeVay, actually bragged about having orgies. Maybe it's the claims of harassment and fraud the Temple objects to.

[AmosArch]

I never understood the point of the atheist strand of 'Satanism'. Even from their pov it would like spending all your time and money dressing up and acting like Wookies in your 'Star Wars is Dumb' club.

[Goju]

Amos, The Satanist atheist paradox. Believing in Satan, but denying the existence of the Being who created him.

[santamonica811]

Goju
To be fair; your sorta begging the question. My understanding of (at least some) Satanists is that they deny the existence of God. (When the Church of Satan was founded in the 60s, it was an overtly atheistic belief system.) And others Satanists deny the existence of what we think of as the Christian/Jewish God, even if they believe in some higher power or powers. So, there's absolutely no paradox for any of these believers.

[John F. Carr]

Maybe they are Zoroastrian Satanists.

[CJColucci]

When I registered at law school, one of the forms asked my religion and said the information would be passed on to the appropriate campus religious groups. Rather than write "none of your f*****g business," which seemed a churlish response to a well-intentioned question I was free to ignore, I wrote "Zoroastrian."
As I left the building, I realized that I was now in New York City, and I spent the better part of a semester expecting a knock on the door from some local Zoroastrian group. Never happened.

[Eugene Volokh]

CJColucci: You and D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao.

[apedad]

Why does someone's belief have to be logical?

And actually it's just the opposite; belief (an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists), by definition doesn't require logic.

They can believe whateva they want.

[John F. Carr]

I'm having flashbacks to Theory of Knowledge class. What does it mean to know something? You believe it and it's true. How do you know it's true? Can you ever really know anything?

[OtisAH]

You *might* understand if you read the Factual Background portion of the complaint.

[DWB]

Um ... I'm not sure that you can libel a satanist ... what, they petted a puppy?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse . . . that which would defame a satanist, or that which is true about a Catholic (or Pentecostalist, or Orthodox Jew, or Republican, or Scientologist, or . . .)?

[The Turtle Dove]

The Prince of Lies paradox: Is a false statement about the begetter of all deception and discord actionable, and if so, must it be proved that it injured him in his trade or profession. Paging Daniel Webster.

Mr. D.

[santamonica811]

TD,
Wait; was the suit about Satan being defamed, or was it about a church (and therefore, church members, by implication) being defamed? The latter, I think. So, I'm not understanding your comment about any false statement against Satan, the person/deity/symbol/whatever.

I get your general point, I think. If Hitler has survived WW2, is there really anything I or you could have falsely said about him that would have harmed his reputation and caused damages? But I think your comment would have been informed by you first reading the actual complaint, which had been linked to in the OP.

[CJColucci]

I suppose accusing Hitler of pederasty would inflict some marginal damage on an already-blighted reputation. Can't imagine the damages would be more than nominal, though