Studying the Glenn Beck defamation lawsuit saga. We’ve summarized the litigation to date.
It started with the Boston Marathon bombing in April of 2013. An English student from Saudi Arabia, Abdulrahman Alharbi, had wondered near the site of the Boston Marathon finish line to observe the spectacle. He suffered minor injuries in the bombing. The police investigated Alharbi and cleared him almost immediately. He was not involved in the bombing in any form or fashion.
A week later, Glenn Beck went on his national radio program and explained that “we know who this man (Alharbi) is” and he is a “very bad, bad, bad man.” He went on to call Alharbi a bag man. The money man. A proven terrorist. Beck made it clear to his legion of listeners that Alharbi had funded the marathon bombing.
Those allegations were totally false.
Alharbi sued Beck and his company (Mercury One) in federal court in Boston (1:14-11550) in April of 2014. His attorney is Peter J. Haley (of Nelson Mullins).
His lawsuit alleged Beck’s remarks defamed him.
The Complaint in PDF (6 pages in PDF)
Beck answered and moved to dismiss the lawsuit through his attorney, a Greenberg Traurig media lawyer from Albany, NY, Michael J. Grygiel.
Beck argued that the First Amendment protected his speech, the public status of the events putting that speech on the highest run of the hierarchy. The paramount importance the subject of Beck’s false speech, Beck argued, would be chilled if the lawsuit went forward. He argued procedurally as well that Alharbi was a public figure because he was interrogated after the bombing and went on television to discuss the matter. Thus Alharbi was required to prove malice. [The distinction is critical in defamation cases – if not a public figure, then there is no malice requirement.]
Beck's Motion to Dismiss in PDF (23 Pages)
Alharbi replied to the motion to dismiss that he had not become a public figure simply because was investigated regarding a crime and then having publicly denied his involvement. [Thus there would be no malice proof requirement.] Alharbi called Beck’s public figure construction of a so-called “bad luck” argument contrary to law. In any event he also explained that even if he was a public figure, Beck had acted with malice. That is, even after cleared by the police, Beck continued to broadcast that he was a bad man that was involved.
Alharbi's Response to the Motion to Dismiss (22 pages)
Beck replied to this motion with an “aha” moment. He argued that Alharbi conceded he had injected himself into the controversy and thus was a public figure. He was also an involuntary public figure (Beck argued) because while a victim of the crime, the initial suspicion of him created that status.
Finally Beck (a self-described professional journalist) explained that just because he disagreed (disagreed without any evidence) with the government’s explanation of the bombing did not rise to the level of malice.
Beck's Reply in Support of his Motion to Dismiss (15 pages)
Beck’s motion is pending before Judge Patti Saris and is set for hearing on August 11, 2014.