Judge dismisses case where pastor sued former parishioner

By KATU.com Staff Published: Jul 26, 2012 at 5:13 PM PDT

BEAVERTON, Ore. – A judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a church pastor who claimed an online review of his church by a former parishioner was defamatory.

At the heart of the lawsuit was a simple question: Was the online review protected free speech, or did it cross the line into defamatory speech.

On Thursday, Washington County Judge Jim Fun sided with the defendants and dismissed the case.

“The court finds that the defendant’s internet postings on plaintiff’s website and defendant Julie Anne Smith’s blog site were made in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest,” Fun wrote in his ruling.

Smith, who was one of several defendants in the case, left the Beaverton Grace Bible Church in 2008. She says she was shunned afterward, and then wrote reviews and a blog calling the pastor a "wolf" and used words like "control", "cult" and "spiritual abuse".

Pastor Chuck O'Neal sued her for defamation and asked for $500,000 in compensation.

"This case was dismissed under Oregon's anti-SLAPP law" said Linda Williams, an attorney for the defendants. "This is a powerful tool to throw out claims

which cannot ever succeed because they seek to squelch speech protected by the First Amendment and Oregon Constitution.”

“SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” That’s a lawsuit that aims to silence somebody who you disagree with by burdening them with legal woes.

“(O’Neal) has the right to govern his congregation in the manner in which he chooses, and defendant Julie Anne Smith is authorized by law to express her disagreement with his performance of those activities,” Fun wrote in the ruling dismissing the case.

"This is what America is all about," Smith told KATU after an earlier hearing. "We need to be able to speak freely even if it's not polite or falls on ears that really (don't) want to hear this kind of thing."

More to Explore

33 comments

Newest | Oldest

Denise Martin

I agree that we need to fiercely protect free speech and I agree with this ruling.

People can publish their negative feelings about someone or a business online freely. When they post a lie that is disputable and has caused harm though the accused party has a right to pursue libel, but making it stick will be tough. A personal evaluation of a business or a church is not a lie. Calling someone controlling is not libel. Calling him a pedophile for instance, without proof, Â unless he is a registered sex offender would be slander.Â

As for libel and slander and the media... in general and in truth the media has a responsibility to investigate and determine without a reasonable doubt that the story they are reporting is true before they tear up lives with it. Reporting an uncomfortable truth by exposing both sides of the story is freedom of speech. Destroying lives by championing one side of a story without investigating the truth of it is libel when the story turns out to be a lie. The media is guilty of it constantly.

My father was the head of Labor Relations for Texaco at one point in his career. Imagine an oil executive moaning about the media manipulating a peaceful strike into a riot for ratings. He loathed the press. I have had good and bad experiences with the media. It all boils down to the integrity of the reporter and/or news agency.

The truth makes great copy. There is no excuse to print lies. And hard stories are still news even if we don't like the light the media paints us in. As long it is based on well researched truth from both sides of the equation it is free speech. Otherwise it can turn into a cyber hate fest that can be dangerous in 3D life! That is libel.

Sandy Kokch

Congrats to the brave lady in question, and to the pathetic hypocrite (who in his web page says he stands up for the 1st while not actually doing it) welcome to the modern world of free speech. That smarting sensation upside your face...that my friend is a HITCH-SLAPP.

Now be a good christian, show us the other cheek, and prepare for some more.

ScottE

Didm't Jesus say something about "Turn the other cheek, and forgoive those that attack you"? I don't remember anything in the bible about suing for everything you can get. Was this pastor and his church supposed to be Christian?

A judge with common sense, how do we gwt him to the Supreme Court?

Rob C

3 Like

Guess the Pastor didnt know how to follow his own teachings and ...........turn the other cheek.

Instead of his Bible he resorted to the legal system.Â Quite telling.

Gwen Boucher

This was aÂ frivolous law suit anyhow. Look at all that has been said about the Scientologists, Catholics, Mormons and other religions and not one of them sued anyone. This guy is a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ.Â

brendan

1 Like

Â @Gwen BoucherÂ ScientologyÂ sues the crap out of everyone.

"According to a U.S. District Court Memorandum of Decision in 1993, Scientologists "have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.' ... It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this."

Rulings such as this have classified the Church of Scientology as a chronicallyÂ vexatious litigant."

Gwen Boucher

1 Like

Â @brendanÂ I did not know that. I'll never become a Scientologist. :)

catherine.henry

3 Like

The fact that he sued this woman makes me believe that everything she said aboutÂ himÂ is probablyÂ true. And I'm pleased to see that the judge decided she had every right to say all that she said.

Matthew B

4 Like

The article doesn't mention it, but one more thing having a case thrown out as on a Anti-SLAPP does is it makes the plaintiff pay the defendants legal bills.

The pastor is now going to have to get out his checkbook and pay.Â It is probably something like $10K for a case like this.

brad/futuristguy

Â @Matthew B You'll find some documents and details at the link to Julie Anne Smith's blog below. My understanding is that, yes, the plaintiffs - Beaverton Grace Bible Church as a non-profit together with Pastor O'Neal as an individual - must cover the legal expenses of all five defendants.

The two defendants who were dropped from the suit by the plaintiffs mid-way into the legal process had already incurred $16,750 in attorney's fees up to that point. A comment by "An Attorney" on Ms. Smith's blog estimated the fees/expenses for the remaining three defendants would be significantly more than that. The plaintiffs also have to cover their own attorneys' fees and other expenses.

This has been an unfortunate situation, but hopefully closure and conciliation are in the future ...

http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/2012/07/judges-decision.html

noneofyourbizzness

7 Like

Justice has prevailed.The constitution allows free speech wich includes Critisism of Religous cults.

CMH-90

Good. pastors arestupid anyway.Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzvI3ilLzZE&list=FLrrGkG1iJkpzXUusezsXJYQ&index=17&feature=plpp_videoÂ

ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE

5 Like

It might be time to chase down applicable Orwell quotes, ok, here you go:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "

and

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. "

-George Orwell

Gwen Boucher

Â @ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredEÂ Some pastors have really big egos. He may have been reacting to her as a way to rationalize the collapse of his church. Perhaps he has delusions ofÂ grandeur, or as an extreme, needs to be on medications.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE

6 Like

Hey Pastor Chuck, do you realize just how bad this makes you and your "Church" appear to everyone?

(probably not, but just thought I'd pose the question regardless) Â It's like putting a big 'Stay the Hell Away!' sign on you and your institution.

NorthernBlackBear

6 Like

I can't help but wonder if he filed for himself or the church.Â Â From the way it is worded, it seems himself.Â Â Then asking for $500K speaks volumes.Â Â I hope Ms Smith was awarded attorneys feees too.

brad/futuristguy

Â @NorthernBlackBear The official court documents that were filed from February through May are available via links at the following website. The lawsuit was indeed filed on behalf of both Beaverton Grace Bible Church as a non-profit organization together with Pastor O'Neal as an individual.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/beaverton-grace-bible-church-v-smith

TD97058

8 Like

Judge Fun made the correct decision in this case. What is sad is that it should never have reached the courtroom in the first place. Â Shame on the pastor for thinking that he could achieve monetary gain from someone for exercising her first amendment right to disagree.

Dienekes4160

1 Like

The idea that a woman can publicly and reasonably criticize a religious institution without fear of persecution isn't solely American, but it's pretty close. This is why.

Ghetto Baby

4 Like

Any one got a link to her blog...I bet its hoot tonight.

Jamesonian002

Â @Ghetto BabyÂ http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/

RalphCramden

8 Like

Excellent decision by the judge.

kramr

9 Like

Good, I hope Julie can sue to get her attorneys fees reimbursed

Jamesonian002

Â @kramrÂ The judge did indeed rule that the plaintiff must pay the attorney's fees. Five different people were sued. The costs are over $16k for two family members, and the three other defendants will announce their own attorney's fees on top of that.