End Times for Lawsuit Against End Times Preacher

From the Complaint in Diver v. Cote, which alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, and an unfair and deceptive trade practice:

The Defendants produce and distribute religious content focused on eschatology, pre-tribulation rapture, and speculative end-times predictions. The Defendants' content includes repeated fear-based messages, such as:

• "Jesus is coming. The rapture is coming soon."
• "You do not want to experience standing before the Lord of the universe naked in your sin, apart from Jesus Christ."

The Defendants repeatedly emphasize 2025-2026 as a likely timeline for the rapture, fostering obsessive thought patterns and undue distress in vulnerable viewers.

The messaging in Defendants' videos induces psychological distress, anxiety, and religious trauma among susceptible individuals. The Defendants frame those who question their theology as "deceived", which promotes social isolation and cognitive rigidity for their followers. The Defendants have monetized their content through YouTube advertising, donations, and merchandise sales, potentially violating consumer protection laws if the financial solicitations are based on misleading claims.

As a direct result of the Defendants' content and messaging, the Plaintiff has suffered:

• Severe emotional distress.
• Anxiety and mental anguish.
• Disruption to personal and professional life.

No dice, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Trial Referee Joseph Shortall concluded, granting a motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute:

The court has carefully examined the arguments made in support of the defendants' motions. The court finds that they have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the complaints in both actions are based on the exercise of their right of free speech on matters of public concern [as required for the anti-SLAPP statute to apply], that is, issues related to health, community well-being and a public figure; namely, Jesus Christ. The defendants' speech was made in a public forum; namely, You Tube and websites open to the public, as required by [the statute].

Once there is a finding that a lawsuit is " in a public forum on a matter of public concern," the Connecticut statute requires that the plaintiff "set forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint … and demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses, that [he] will prevail on the merits of the complaints." But plaintiff, who is representing himself, failed to appear to present his argument on that, so the case was dismissed.

Mario Cerame (Aeton Law Partners LLP) represents defendants.

 

Comments

[tkamenick]

"The messaging in Defendants' videos induces psychological distress, anxiety, and religious trauma among susceptible individuals."

So.... don't go watch the videos?

[Drewski]

Under originalism, which I'm told the courts are now supposed to use in 1A cases, this decision is obviously wrong. The government was allowed to ban fortune-telling and divination at the time of the founding and therefore such matters are not amenable to First Amendment protection. Indeed, courts have historically rejected 1A defenses (both speech and religious) and the Supreme Court has declined to step in when petitioned. Seems silly to me, but if you're going to demand originalism you need to follow it wherever it goes.

[ReaderY]

Some states still ban fortune-telling etc..

These matters have long been held not to be in any way religious as a matter of law. They involve claims the individual personally has special clairvoyance powers. The idea behind these laws is that people are committing fraud because nobody actually has these powers. Because they are not doctrines about a Supreme Being or Beings, they are not religion. And to the extent they involve fraud, they are not protected by free speech.

In the 1990s, when the Michigan Legislature was debating whether to repeal its law against fortune telling, somebody asked whether anyone had ever prosecuted an economist.

[CommentMonkey]

It doesn't appear that there is an uninterrupted practice of upholding blanket prohibitions on fortune-telling. There are several cases in which such laws have been struck down on 1A grounds. One consistent thread in the cases seems to involve whether the laws flatly prohibit fortune-telling (content restrictions) or whether they are primarily regulatory (requiring disclaimers, license fees, etc.). Regulatory requirements are generally permissible and flat prohibitions not.

A complicating factor for purposes of originalism is that the 1A was not deemed incorporated and applicable to the states at the time of the founding. So the fact that some state and local governments may have regulated or banned fortune-telling does not necessarily establish that the First Amendment was understood to permit such regulations/bans.

Additionally, as ReaderY points out, the impetus for laws restricting fortune-telling was consumer protection and the prevention of fraud. Fortune-tellers generally make paid predictions specific to each consumer. The theory was essentially that charging customers for fortune-telling was inherently deceptive or fraudulent. Here, the court stressed that the statements were made in a public forum and concerned matters of public importance. They weren't made in a private setting or directed at the plaintiff in particular.

So founding-era restrictions on fortune-telling don't have much, if any, relevance to this case.

[Longtobefree]

"As a direct result of the Defendants' content and messaging, the Plaintiff has suffered:
Severe emotional distress.
Anxiety and mental anguish.
Disruption to personal and professional life."

Funny, a lot of conservatives have had that happen from democrat "messaging" (lawfare).

[ReaderY]

It’s weird how an obvious free religion claim gets shoehorned into a speech claim about a public figure because that’s what permits quick dismissal and sanctions.

The shoehorning strikes me as potentially problematic. If someone is simply a public figure, statements about that person are potentially falsifiable. But the whole point about religious claims is they are not legally falsifiable.

[Malika la Maize]

"Jesus is coming. The rapture is coming soon."

I wonder if he has a savings account or a mortgage or car lease..

[not guilty]

Do you know how to discombobulate a believer in the Rapture?

Leave several empty pairs of shoes on the sidewalks alongside the roads he is known to travel on the way to his workplace.

[John F. Carr]

Without religion as a defense, an apocalyptic preacher would be in the same position as somebody who says a building or airplane is going to blow up tomorrow.