Libel Claims by The Satanic Temple Against Newsweek Over Sexual Abuse Allegations …
thrown out for lack of evidence of "actual malice" (i.e., knowing or reckless falsehood on Newsweek's part).
A short excerpt from today's long decision by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil (S.D.N.Y.) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC:
The Satanic Temple, Inc. … [sued] Newsweek Magazine LLC … [for alleged defamation] in the article titled "Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit" published by Newsweek. After this Court's [earlier] Opinion and Order on Defendant's motion to dismiss, only one statement, "Accounts of sexual abuse being covered up in ways that were more than anecdotal" (the "Article Statement"), remains at issue….
The court grants Newsweek summary judgment as to that last statement. The court concludes that there's a material factual dispute as to what the statement would mean to a reasonable reader (and whether it's false):
The relevant portion of the Article, with the Article Statement emphasized here (but not in the Article), reads:
He hadn't been involved long when he came to feel that TST 'appeared to be an inept, rudderless organization that had accidentally risen to prominence through something of a disingenuous prank,' referring to the 2013 filming event in Florida.
He soon left the group, then was leaked material about 'leaders posing happily with major alt-right media figures,' he wrote. 'Accounts of sexual abuse being covered up in ways that were more than anecdotal. Dozens of people kicked out for asking for financial records from this alleged-non-profit organization.'
In Newsweek's motion, it argues that the Article Statement is substantially true and therefore cannot be defamatory because the most straight forward interpretation of the Article Statement merely asserts that Jinx Strange, or other members of The Satanic Temple, were no longer involved with The Satanic Temple in part because they "heard about accounts of sexual abuse being covered up." The Satanic Temple argues that the Article Statement does not merely convey that Strange, or other members, were aware of these allegations. Instead, The Satanic Temple asserts that the Article Statement "falsely implies the existence of 'leaked material' which shows sexual abuse and cover-up." …
[I]n reviewing each [side's motion for summary judgment] and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the Court concludes that the Article Statement is reasonably susceptible to multiple meanings, some of which are non-defamatory, and thus the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Article Statement is false and defamatory or true and not defamatory. See Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises, Inc. (2d Cir. 2021) (rejecting appellants argument that the challenged statements were false and defamatory based on their proposed "most obvious interpretation" as "without merit" because the other side's alternative interpretation was also "a reasonable interpretation" and it was "for the trier of fact, not for the court acting on the issue solely as a matter of law, to determine in what sense the words were used and understood").
But the court concluded that Newsweek was entitled to summary judgment as to the question of "actual malice," which is to say the question whether it knew the statement was false (or at least likely false). Regardless of whether the Satanic Temple was a public figure, the court held, the statement was on a matter of public concern and thus New York's anti-SLAPP statute mandated (just as a statutory matter) that the court apply the actual malice standard:
As an initial matter, The Satanic Temple's argument that this "case presents the need for only a single yardstick, the [Newsweek] Editorial Guidelines because those establish … Newsweek's subjective standard of care" is mistaken…. [A]ctual malice is demonstrated when there is evidence that the Article Statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Thus, evidence that Newsweek allegedly failed to follow its own internal Editorial Guidelines, without more, does not satisfy the actual malice requirement….
The Satanic Temple argues … that Cooper, as the editor of the Article, generally failed to follow the Editorial Guidelines of Newsweek and also had a personal bias against The Satanic Temple…. The Satanic Temple cites to Cooper's deposition testimony where she admits that she does not know specifically who was sexually abused, what sexual abuse entailed, who engaged in the cover up, or what the cover up entails …. But this lack of knowledge about the underlying facts of the Article Statement does not amount to evidence of actual malice…. "[T]here is a critical difference between not knowing whether something is true and being highly aware that it is probably false. Only the latter establishes reckless disregard in a defamation action." …
Cooper's alleged failure to further investigate the answers to these questions also does not amount to evidence of actual malice because there is no evidence that Cooper had any obvious reason to doubt the Article Statement….
The Satanic Temple claims also that Cooper was biased against The Satanic Temple, and that purported bias combined with her failure to investigate could support a jury's finding of actual malice. The Court disagrees. First, to support its claim that Cooper was biased, The Satanic Temple points to a single email chain between Duin [the article's author] and Cooper in which Cooper asks Duin, "[c]an you add a phrase about the abortion suit—that it's a piece of political theatre; they don't actually have an abortion ritual." In her deposition Cooper said, "I am assuming they don't actually have an abortion ritual, so, before we say that, let's make sure that either is the case or that it's a piece of political theater."
The Court is entirely unconvinced that this single email posing a question to the Duin about The Satanic Temple amounts to evidence that Cooper was biased. Bare assertions of bias are insufficient. Even if this email were somehow illustrative of a personal bias that Cooper had against The Satanic Temple, without evidence to suggest that Cooper had serious reservations about the accuracy of the Article Statement or that she acted pursuant to that bias, this evidence is insufficient to create a triable issue of actual malice….
The Satanic Temple contends that Duin failed to properly investigate and fact-check the Article Statement and this is evidence of actual malice. In support, The Satanic Temple provides evidence that Duin did not ask Strange follow-up questions about who specifically was sexually abused or what he meant by "cover up," and evidence that she did not ask Graves or Dr. Laycock about the Article Statement. However, these facts without evidence that Duin harbored any serious doubts or had uncertainties as to the accuracy of the Article Statement do not constitute proof of actual malice.
The record evidence demonstrates that Duin did not have any serious doubts about the truth of the Article Statement. For example, Duin testified that she found the Article Statement "inherently plausible considering the account from the Seattle [members she interviewed], or the interviews with the Seattle people … and the account from Scott … that what Jinx was saying was true." Furthermore, Duin testified that she looked into Strange's claims and "everything checked out." She testified that there were many complaints about the alt-right figures, and there were multiple people raising flags about The Satanic Temple's finances, including in Dr. Laycock's book. Plus, Duin testified that she "found it plausible [Strange] was correct" because "there were plenty of people who were saying" the same or similar allegations, including in her "other interviews." Therefore, The Satanic Temple merely pointing to potential negligent short comings in her research or investigation are insufficient to support a finding of actual malice.
The Satanic Temple attempts to argue that Duin should have had obvious reasons to doubt the Article Statement because its source, Strange, was biased and semi-anonymous. This also does not satisfy the actual malice standard. While, relying on wholly anonymous sources can be circumstantial evidence of actual malice, the evidence here does not support that Duin relied wholly on anonymous sources. The evidence, as outlined above, shows that Duin relied on a whole multitude of sources before including the Article Statement. While it is true that the Article Statement was supplied to Duin by an individual who utilizes a pseudonym, the record evidence clearly demonstrates that Duin spoke with multiple other individuals, conducted her own research, including reviewing articles, books, and internet sources, and interviewed other individuals, including non-anonymous sources, which all supported her decision to include the Article Statement.
Furthermore, Duin relying on former members of The Satanic Temple whom she described as disgruntled, when there is no evidence that she had doubts about the truth of their statements, does not amount to evidence of actual malice. The Satanic Temple further argues that Duin consciously avoided serious doubts by not asking Greaves about the Article Statement. However, this argument fails because, as the Court explained above, there is no evidence that Duin was faced with subjective doubts that would have required her to investigate further….
Cameron Stracher and Sara Tesoriero (Cameron Stracher, PLLC) represent Newsweek.