Bigot Learns It’s Extremely Easy To Lose A Libel Lawsuit. All You Have To Do Is Engage In Libel.

from the best-con-job-is-the-con-job-you-give-yourself dept

Definitely loving all of this. And right up front (just in case the defendant thinks she can rob Peter Techdirt to pay Paul Eric Posey), I’ll make it clear this post will be filled with colorful expression, hyperbole, highly opinionated takes on the lawsuit, and… possibly… archaic slang.

A lot of people (especially the most awful ones) think libel laws in this country are too restrictive. They claim it’s almost impossible to rifle through someone’s wallet via court order because someone said something about them they didn’t like. In most cases, those people are like the defendant here — someone who probably thought it was impossible to get successfully sued for libel in the United States.

You know these people. They’re the ones who cry libel every time one of their own is insulted but say dumb shit like “facts don’t care about your feelings” when other people complain about the garbage flowing out their social media accounts.

The saddest thing about this case is that this person continued to do the libel even after she knew what she was saying on social media was definitively not true. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)

A jury has awarded more than $1.1 million in damages to the drag performer who sued a blogger for defamation.

The unanimous verdict was returned Friday. The jury found that blogger Summer Bushnell defamed Post Falls resident Eric Posey when she accused him of exposing himself to the crowd while he performed in drag at the Coeur d’Alene City Park bandshell in June 2022.

That’s hilarious. Not so much for Eric Posey, who was falsely accused of exposing himself. He sued the blogger in 2022 for claiming something had happened that actually hadn’t happened.

And, of course, the posting Posey sued Bushnell over was motivated by her own bigotry. It was also an attempt to rouse a rabble that rarely needs an excuse to be roused.

The day of Posey’s performance, June 11, 2022, Bushnell posted a video of herself discussing the mass arrest of Patriot Front members near City Park, as well as footage from Posey’s performance.

“Why did no one arrest the man in a dress who flashed his genitalia to minors and people in the crowd?” she said in the video. “No one said anything about it and there’s video. I’m going to put up a blurred video to prove it.”

Yes, this is the kind of person who thinks posting an edited video can “prove” anything. However, it did prove this: there are plenty of suckers in Idaho and some of them wear government-issued uniforms. After racking up a few thousand views on social media, the edited video generated national news coverage as well as a local police investigation. Fortunately, the criminal charges were dropped after prosecutors took a look at the unedited video.

City prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges and stated publicly that the unedited video showed no exposure.

Here’s what Bushnell posted, as included in Posey’s lawsuit [PDF] against the blogger:

Here’s the same shot in unedited form:

After being sued by the drag performer, the blogger claimed this was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding. The video had been passed on to her by another person who had blurred the crotch area and Bushnell was just passing along this information.

But that excuse only lasted until she was called to the stand to testify.

Wendy J. Olsen, legal counsel for Posey, questioned Bushnell about Facebook messages she sent to multiple friends, including ones in which she references being able to see Posey’s genitals in an unedited video.

“And you knew at the time it was false,” Olsen said.

“It was not accurate,” Bushnell replied.

“You knew that at the time,” Olsen said.

“Correct,” Bushnell said.

That’s libel, folks. That’s fully admitted defamation by the defamer on the record in court during a jury trial. That can’t be undone. That’s how you lose a libel case in the United States. You say something defamatory, knowing it’s not true.

Bushnell’s lawyer, despite the $1.1 million damages award and despite his client’s own admission she had lied to people about the drag performer, continues to engage in self-delusion of his own.

Attorney Colton Boyles, who represents Bushnell, told jurors that his client’s allegations were “close to the line” but did not cross the line into defamation. He maintained that Bushnell’s “honest belief” is that Posey exposed himself, though she admitted on the witness stand that she never saw the “fully exposed genitals” she described to others.

“That remains her steadfast testimony to this day,” Boyles said.

There’s a very good reason Colton Boyles would represent someone like Bushnell. And it’s not because he’s such a great litigator. No, this is all ideological. Colton’s decision to take this case was likely motivated by his own personal animus against people like drag performer Eric Posey.

Boyles, whose full name is Dennis Colton Boyles, was recently retained by the Community Library Network – the group of Kootenai County libraries outside of Coeur d’Alene – whose board members have ambitions of restricting books and services.

He defended former Idaho Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin when she lost a public records lawsuit to the Idaho Press Club.

Boyles pleaded guilty to a driving under the influence misdemeanor late last year and is on unsupervised probation until Dec. 12.

He has appeared as a guest on far-right internet shows, such as “The Pete Santilli Show.” Pete Santilli was a vocal supporter of anti-government activist Ammon Bundy during the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ammon Bundy’s governor campaign paid Boyles’ firm $5,000 in 2022 for legal advice.

In an Epoch Times documentary, Boyles pushed deep state conspiracy theories about Child Protective Services.

“I would say it is a state- and federal-funded kidnapping system,” Boyles said.

[…]

In 2021, Boyles donated $500 to Post Falls School Board candidate David Reilly, a former radio host who has expressed antisemitic views and attended the 2017 white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

With competent representation, the blogger may have been able to secure a settlement in the low thousands. She might have been able to walk away with nothing more than a public apology. But she chose to retain a showboating rube. I hope he can explain to Bushnell how he just cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars and makes it clear that no matter how many libs the two have collectively “owned,” being stupid on social media can’t really be considered a stable revenue stream.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Bigot Learns It’s Extremely Easy To Lose A Libel Lawsuit. All You Have To Do Is Engage In Libel.”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
53 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

You know these people. They’re the ones who cry libel every time one of their own is insulted but say dumb shit like “facts don’t care about your feelings” when other people complain about the garbage flowing out their social media accounts.

Giving them way too much credit here, Tim. As often as not, they cry “slander” rather than “libel” when encountering written words that upset them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

In the sense that a reasonable person could recognize something as a parody or similar, yes, there is a reasonableness standard in some circumstances.

In the sense that you can say whatever lies you want about whoever you want so long as a reasonable person would consider you untrustworthy, no, there is no reasonableness standard.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Steubenville in 2012 is perfectly demonstrative of how MAGA country treats rape.

In 2020, Trump got over 69% of the vote in Washington County, which contains Steubenville.

Anybody who’s grown up in MAGA country has also seen their share of things like women, young girls, and consent being disrespected and disregarded, only to have their communities and local authorities turn against the survivors.

It’s who these people are. It’s who they’ve always been.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'Sure I know that it's not true, but I choose to BELIEVE otherwise.'

Attorney Colton Boyles, who represents Bushnell, told jurors that his client’s allegations were “close to the line” but did not cross the line into defamation.

Of course, because what could possibly be defamatory in claiming that someone flashed their genitals to a bunch of children like the blogger lied and claimed they did?

He maintained that Bushnell’s “honest belief” is that Posey exposed himself, though she admitted on the witness stand that she never saw the “fully exposed genitals” she described to others.

Funny way to say ‘saw an unedited version, and therefore knew damn well that there was no exposure’…

“That remains her steadfast testimony to this day,” Boyles said.

By their argument if someone took the comments from them or their bigot client, ‘bleeped’ a large section of it and then claimed that the hidden text was an admission that they throw puppies into woodchippers so long as they claimed that they super-duper believed that’s what the hidden text said, in spite of having seen the unedited version, nothing in there would be defamatory…

Truly, when you have to defend the indefensible it’s amazing just how stupid your arguments have to be…

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re:

By their argument if someone took the comments from them or their bigot client, ‘bleeped’ a large section of it and then claimed that the hidden text was an admission that they throw puppies into woodchippers so long as they claimed that they super-duper believed that’s what the hidden text said, in spite of having seen the unedited version, nothing in there would be defamatory…

Or to put it another way, it’s as if saying the Count from Sesame Street was using profanity here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUeN6LZNPVQ

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Why did no one say anything about it? Good question. Why would no one of hundreds of people say nothing about “flashing genitals”, particularly as it was in public, and supposedly a lot of children were present?

Why would that happen? Why would absolutely no one, out of all those people, say anything?

Hmmm.

And then cops suddenly take thos shit seriously because of some asshole with a blog. When hundreds of people reported nothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

What’s with this past tense stuff I’m seeing, as in “She was white”? Tell me, was part of the judgment that she had to become a black person?

She is white, and remains so to this day. Although now, her sphincter’s pucker-factor is likely to come to the rescue of her mouth a tad more quickly. We’ll see how that goes, right?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Y’all know she is just going to let the community pay for her crimes right?

She is going to beg for money, supported by a lawyer who is going to claim this was some deep state lizard alien plot to murder children and replace them with… I don’t even fucking know anymore. Claim they are out to get you & the money pours out. Even better, after the unedited video is part of the fucking record these assholes are going to claim crazy chicks version was real that there were genitals everywhere in those kids faces & globohomo forced the cops to look away & if you show them the unedited pictures… it was AI deep fakes!!!

Because it makes more sense to them that the secret cabal is spending millions to do this rather than spending the much lower number to just have these ‘whistleblowers’ executed or replaced with alien pods.

See also: The asshole posting video of himself getting thrown off the ground of a childrens hospital. He claims he just wanted to talk to the ceo, but what sort of “reporter” films the comings & goings of a childrens hospital in a stunt to get trespassed, get more clicks, & donations from people screaming that if the hospital gets any public money they have to allow anyone to film anything on the property.

David says:

I am not sure libel laws can keep up with reality

The problem is that the process of getting news cannot keep up with reality any more. What counts as “news” and news distribution nowadays is lots of hearsay and wishful thinking amplified according to its echo chamber value into absurd proportions. That results in everybody spreading absurdly magnified grievance-filled bullshit.

Facts are not in obvious or plentiful supply in the world of Social Media, and news corporations themselves jump on the spread-the-bullshit-while-it’s-hot train.

That makes it pretty hard to prove actual malice that is more endemic to the system than to individuals, and it ends up punishing an occasional snowflake for the consequences of an avalanche. Which actually fuels the grievance circle.

No love lost on this particular specimen, but I think that for getting under control what is happening here, this is not doing a whole lot.

David says:

Re: Re:

Yep, they crossed a line that matters legally, but in the context of what happens with regard to news circulation and Social Media, it is far from being prominent red line, and while it makes a legal difference, it doesn’t make that much of a difference to what does or does not happen to what consequences.

In short: the verdict is more testament to the defendant and its legal presentation to being complete idiots rather than to them standing out with regard to the damage their actions cause to other people.

What made the decisive difference legally did not cause all that much of a difference compared to what bigots spreading their favorite echo chamber bullshit can cause without being legally on the hook for it.

You don’t need “actual malice” to cause real and even intentional harm.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

All queer people are groomers

Nope. Just asserting something doesn’t make it true.

and all groomers are potential child abusers.

That is an odd statement, since I’m pretty sure being a groomer is bad enough in itself without trying to connect it to something else, but more importantly, everyone who can move and/or speak is a potential child abuser. We don’t punish people based on what they may potentially do in the future, not unless they have an actual plan to do so and taken actions in furtherance of that plan.

Therefore, all queer people […] should be shot.

You skipped at least one step. None of your premises are enough without additional argumentation to get us to believing that anyone should be shot. You only got to “all queer people are potential child abusers”. That’s not enough. This argument is invalid as the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises without additional assumptions being made.

Second, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and we don’t use firing squads or anything anymore for areas that do, so I don’t think that’s even a thing we should or would do.

Third, f— off.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

everyone who can move and/or speak is a potential child abuser

Reminds me of this quote from Penn Jillette:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is why we need to strike preemptively against the MAGAts. It kinda worked against Trump w/ the politically-motivated felony prosecutions, but more active means are required against his supporters.

Now this is the standard that should exist for a defamation lawsuit, but with which many Techdirt commenters seem to disagree when they say that someone who spreads defamatory information in the honest belief that it is true should be subject to the same penalties as the individual who created the defamatory material in the first place, and therefore knows it to be false.

Anonymous Coward says:

Redo because copy/paste got borked*

That’s how you lose a libel case in the United States. You say something defamatory, knowing it’s not true.

Now this is the standard that should exist for a defamation lawsuit, but with which many Techdirt commenters seem to disagree when they say that someone who spreads defamatory information in the honest belief that it is true should be subject to the same penalties as the individual who created the defamatory material in the first place, and therefore knows it to be false.

*I had copied something to quote in response to an earlier comment, but for some reason, when I copied sentences from the main article, the original copy got pasted in their place, I don’t know how.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...