Bachmann-Affiliated Preacher/Radio Host Sues Rachel Maddow & MSNBC

[meegbear]

Right wing radio host and preacher Bradlee Dean has filed suit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC for a report claiming that Dean had called for the execution of homosexuals. According to the suit, Dean did not and does not endorse executing gay people. Dean and his band have performed at fundraisers for Rep. Michele Bachmann and she has praised his ministry. From a press release issued by the conservative group, Freedom Watch:

Tomorrow, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International, Inc., a foundation dedicated to restoring morality and values in the nation's youth, will sue MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and others who defamed its founder, Bradlee Dean. A press conference will be held to announce the suit at the above location at 11 am on July 27. Bradlee Dean and his attorney will speak at the press conference. Bradlee Dean, a renowned hard metal rocker who came to Christ after suffering a hard life as a young boy, has dedicated his life to this mission, a mission that has been under attack by liberal media since its inception. In the course of his ministry, Dean once made a statement on radio criticizing his fellow Christians for not taking a stronger stand about the gay rights lobby promoting homosexuality in the schools. He made a strong reference to Muslims taking the issue more seriously in the context of Shariah law, but did not condone their practices. It was Bradlee's intent to focus attention on the issue, not to advocate harm to anyone.

Here's the Bradlee Dean quote in question:

"Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination."

(At the link) Below are audio clips of the full quotes in context. In the second clip, Dean calls for the imprisonment of gay people and praises a then-pending Rwanda law that would imprison gay people for life.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmann-affiliated-preacherradio-host.html

[Lint Head]

1. These statements were made in a public forum and can be reproduced

as information or news. There is no validity to this and it will be thrown out.

[soleft]

2. Do we know how the TRMS reported it?

Also, I was expecting an older due before I went to the link.

[meegbear]

3. No, he's a "a renowned hard metal rocker who came to Christ" ...

that's why he looks like an 80's hair band leftover.

[Iggo]

13. Oh, it's THAT guy.

I hate him.

[nuxvomica]

4. His statement was a syllogistic way of advocating it

I don't see a lot of daylight between that statement and directly calling for executions. Don't people want to feel they are moral and upholding God's law?

[Yavin4]

5. How Dare Rachel Quote Someone Who Made A Public Statement

The gall!

:sarcasm:

[Volaris]

6. PLEASE tell me that THIS is not the real reason why Rachel is on vacation this week..

'cause even the PERCEPTION that it is, could lead to painting with a VERY broad brush...

[Cirque du So-What]

7. Whether the actual words came out of his mouth is a moot point

IANAL, but isn't it necessary to prove that the libeler *knew* that their statement was false & defamatory, yet made the statement anyway? Given the tone of this christofascists's other pronouncements, it's reasonable to assume that Rachel et al saw an actual call for execution of gays in America. I don't labor under such an illusion, however, and see his hate-filled screed for all that it really is.

[SteppingRazor]

12. That depends on whether it's a public or private figure.

Public figures (and I assume this fellow qualifies) need to prove that the statement was made with actual malice, the legal term meaning simply that the reporter knew the information was false, or had a reckless disregard in determining whether the information was false. Moreover the plaintiff has to provide "clear and convincing evidence" of both the falsity and actual, intentional malice.

So, for public figures, it's a pretty high burden, and a tough one to meet especially in this case. Were the preacher considered a private figure, it'd be a different story, but I don't think any court would recognize him as a private figure.

on edit: IANAL either, but I am a journalist, so I know this particular area of the law pretty well.

[wiggs]

8. Sadly, the fundraising money and TV exposure they will

get from the attempt will far outweigh expenses of starting a lawsuit. It's just attention-getting. And plenty of wingers will support the cause with what little money they have.

[maxrandb]

9. WTF? Another "job-killing", "frivolous" lawsuit from the right?

I'm shocked...shocked I tell you.

[geardaddy]

10. Oh shut up Axl Rose wannabe

Get the fuck outta my state!

[Major Hogwash]

11. Gawd I hope they don't chicken out just before this goes to trial. Maddow will wipe the floor with

them. She is about a gazillion times smarter than they are, and that's a conservative estimate because she is a freakin' RHODES SCHOLAR!!!!

Jesus, don't ever get caught arguing with a freakin' RHODES SCHOLAR, you will lose!
I know, personal experience.

I'll never question if the sugar bowl was filled that morning or not ever again!!