Posted on 06/27/2022 10:36:52 AM PDT by aimhigh
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES MEDIA, INC., DBA D. JAMES KENNEDY MINISTRIES
v.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 21–802. Decided June 27, 2022
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., is a Christian nonprofit dedicated to spreading the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” and “a biblically informed view of the world, using all available media.” 406 F. Supp. 3d 1258, 1268 (MD Ala. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In 2017, Coral Ridge applied to receive donations through AmazonSmile, a program that allows Amazon customers to contribute to approved nonprofits. To its dismay, Coral Ridge learned it was ineligible for the program. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had designated Coral Ridge an “Anti-LGBT hate group” because of its biblical views concerning human sexuality and marriage. Id., at 1270 (internal quotation marks omitted). AmazonSmile excluded Coral Ridge based on SPLC’s “hate group” designation.
Objecting to that designation, Coral Ridge sued SPLC for defamation under Alabama law. Coral Ridge maintained that although it “opposes homosexual conduct” based on its religious beliefs, it is in no sense a “hate group.” Amended Complaint in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:17–cv–566 (MD Ala., Oct. 18, 2017), ECF Doc. 40, p. 13. To the contrary, it “has nothing but love for people who engage in homosexual conduct” and “has never attacked or maligned anyone on the basis of engaging in homosexual conduct.” Ibid.
Coral Ridge alleged that SPLC was aware that it was not a “hate group,” but falsely labeled it one anyway to “destroy the Ministry” by “dissuad[ing] people and organizations from donating to [it].” Id., at 19. SPLC responded that its “hate group” designation was protected by the First Amendment. The District Court agreed and dismissed Coral Ridge’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Because Coral Ridge conceded that it was a “‘public figure,’” the court observed that Coral Ridge had to prove three elements to rebut SPLC’s First Amendment defense: the “‘hate group’” designation had to be
(1) provably false,
(2) actually false, and
(3) made with “‘actual malice.’”
406 F. Supp. 3d, at 1270. The court concluded that SPLC’s “hate group” designation was not provably false because “‘hate group’ has a highly debatable and ambiguous meaning.” Id., at 1277. Additionally, the court held that Coral Ridge had not plausibly alleged that SPLC acted with “actual malice,” as defined by this Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280 (1964). See 406 F. Supp. 3d, at 1278–1280.
The Court of Appeals affirmed but rested its decision exclusively on the “actual malice” standard. See 6 F. 4th 1247, 1251–1253 (CA11 2021). While a defamed person must typically prove only “a false written publication that subjected him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule,” McKee v. Crosby, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019), a “public figure” laboring under the “actual malice” standard must prove that a defamatory statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” New York Times, 376 U. S., at 280.
Applying that “actual malice” standard, the Court of Appeals agreed that Coral Ridge’s complaint had not sufficiently alleged that SPLC doubted or had good reason to doubt the truth of its “hate group” designation. See 6 F. 4th, at 1252–1253.
THOMAS, J., dissenting Coral Ridge now asks us to reconsider the “actual malice” standard. As I have said previously, “we should.” Berisha v. Lawson, 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2). “New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.” McKee, 586 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 2). Those decisions have “no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., 991 F. 3d 231, 251 (CADC 2021) (Silberman, J., dissenting in part). This Court has never demonstrated otherwise. In fact, we have never even inquired whether “the First or Fourteenth Amendment, as originally understood, encompasses an actual-malice standard.” McKee, 586 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 10).
I would grant certiorari in this case to revisit the “actual malice” standard. This case is one of many showing how New York Times and its progeny have allowed media organizations and interest groups “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” Tah, 991 F. 3d, at 254 (opinion of Silberman, J.).
SPLC’s “hate group” designation lumped Coral Ridge’s Christian ministry with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. It placed Coral Ridge on an interactive, online “Hate Map” and caused Coral Ridge concrete financial injury by excluding it from the AmazonSmile donation program. Nonetheless, unable to satisfy the “almost impossible” actual-malice standard this Court has imposed, Coral Ridge could not hold SPLC to account for what it maintains is a blatant falsehood. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 771 (1985) (White, J., concurring in judgment).
Because the Court should not “insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits” unless “the First Amendment requires” us to do so, Berisha, 594 U. S., at ___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 3), I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
Preaching godliness is not, indeed can not be, “hate.”
Excellent dissent from Thomas.
To those who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate.
And Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas is the GOAT.
How is SPLC funded, and is there any way we can defund them?
Justice Thomas right again.
This is actually a serious problem. Should not the person making a claim bear the burden of proof? SPLC should be compelled to define what it means by "hate group" so that Coral Ridge can actually mount a defense.
(because of its biblical views concerning human sexuality and marriage)
Rejection of God’s plans and Word is why He is going to allow this world 🌎🌍 to get Satan’s anti-messiah as a cruel ruler for 7 years. /Preaching to the choir
And by ‘peace’ shall he destroy many.
Daniel 8:23-25
King James Version
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%208%3A23-25&version=KJV
What was the breakdown of the justices on the denial, or is that number not published?
Again, justice Thomas leads by dissent based on principled judicial reasoning not precedents.
Much of the BLM guilt donations from corporations went directly to SPLC.
They are flush with cash and radical lawyers.
Much of their funding is obtained by frightening old Jewish women with illusory threats of “neo-nazis”.
So, what does this actually mean?
Who cares? We all know what the SPLC is, why would I care who they designate as a hate group? They have no more standing to label anything then I do.
The Left cherishes ambiguous language for exactly this reason. They can convince people of proposition X without officially taking the indefensible position that proposition X is actually true when called out.
Even in non derogatory matters they will say "climate change is real" hoping to convince people that there is an actionable emergency situation with the climate. But when called out on it they can point out they only said the climate changes, which is true.
They will say "Black Lives Matter" hoping to convince people that there is an epidemic of cops mowing down countless innocent black victims and that police need to be defunded and indoctrinated. However when called out on it, they will pretend they meant simply that black lives do matter, which is of course true.
SPLC is a commie hate fest organization.
SPLC is a HORRIBLE organization!!
The “actual malice” standard from the 1964 Times v. Sullivan case does need to be re-examined, but apparently the other originalists didn’t think this was the right case to do so.
Start down that road and lose and the horrible standards will only be strengthened.
:: Preaching godliness is not, indeed can not be, “hate.” ::
But grifting from behind Jesus’ robe is disgusting.
What does what I posted mean?
It means that SPLC sends out a bunch of fundraising propaganda in the mail, and by other means. Much of that propaganda consists of hysterical fearmongering about “neo-nazis” (whatever those are). The propaganda is targeted at elderly Jewish people, particularly women, intending to secure donations from them to the SPLC. SPLC are scumbags.
Did I really have to spell it out for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.