Judge weighing whether church defamation suit can proceed

The judge dismissed the case, ruling for the defendants. He found Ms. Smith's statements to be opinions, not defamation. The summary of his ruling, which was publicized today (July 26), states: 

 

“The court finds that the defendant’s internet postings on plaintiff’s website and defendant Julie Ann Smith’s blog site, were made in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest. The court further finds that plaintiff has not met the burden of presenting substantial evidence the defendant’s statements are defamatory.”

 

For those interested, Ms. Smith's latest blog post contains excerpts from the ruling, plus related links to news and documents:

 

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

I really don't think what this woman said was hate speech.  And as the judge stated :

 

"This is what America is all about," Smith said outside the courtroom. "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."

Trolls.  Nothing you say will help decide the obvious.  The truth speaks for itself. 

There is but one possible issue of defamation.  That is the allegation that a sex offender was allowed access to the children in the church, specifically in the nursery area.  The story told by the Defendant in the suit is this:  There was a sex offender in the church, later convicted.  (this is a verified fact) The pastor apparently knew about this situation for some time (fact), and it was not reported to the authorities for some months(fact), which is an offense against the law of the state.  People in the church were not informed about the offender (fact), and the offender was seen in the nursery area in the months before there was a report to the authorities (Defendant saw him there).  So what do you call a failure to report by pastor with the result is that the offender is in the nursery area of the church building?  Plaintiff alleges Defendant called it "harboring" of the sex offender.  But not reporting, as required by law, and allowing offender access in the building where children are -- what is that.

 

If the statements are true, except the choice of the word "harboring", how is that slander.  To be slander it has to be FALSE and MALICIOUS.

Think, think, think people what this would feel like if you were the object of such slander,

gossip, and defamation of your character and church - it's not about free speech, it's about 4 years

of constant abuse and slander and trying to destroy a man, his family, and his church

First Amendment free speech rights do NOT protect against defamatory speech. That's what this case is all about...not about words or phrases such as; "creepy", "cultish", "wolf" blah-blah-blah. This woman has been on a relentless campaign since '09 to destroy this man and his church. Her CRIMINAL accusations on the google site were so bad and defamatory that google removed them...and of course she blamed the pastor, how convenient. You can't go on a three-and-a-half year rampage with CRIMINAL accusations against anyone, and try to hide behind free speech rights. And another thing, she's NOT being sued because she started a "survivor blog", she's being sued  for defamation that she posted two years before the blog was created!!! Everyone is entitled to opinions...hers weren't opinions...they were CRIMINAL, defamatory accusations!!! Now,somehow she's the "victim" in all of this, and trying to hide behind a "survivor blog" saying it's all about "healing"!!! Yeah...right...

Free speech...Constitution protects her.Just look at the "cult of scientology"...More and more coming out and doubt it's false info. She has a right to her opinions, esp if fact.

I'm repeating my comment cuz I burried it with too much blabbin on my part.  For some reason this story just ticks me off.  This guy has been suffering under these barking babes for YEARS???!!  He doesn't do anything for YEARS?????  Innernetty nutjobs pile on cuz he's a pastor????  I think this is weird and sick.  This woman is fixated on this church.  check out her stalk blog.  She's posting all night long on that thing.  Even weirder then me.  I say, wish you well Pastor Oneel.  You've been stalked.  You've been harassed.   You've been quiet thru it.  Not Collin.  I'm on it for you.  k, leaving again.

I don't think that any of us have all the facts in this case including patty, below. But it's clear this "church" is not going to be forgiving or turn the other cheek.

At last some balanced reporting on this case!! After a three year campaign of accusing this pastor of the worst kinds of criminal behavior, and then this woman tries to hide behind a blog and call it "spiritual abuse"??? and she's somehow the victim??? This man has shown marvelous restraint in not trying to stop all this years ago. All of us,as American citizens, are protected by free speech rights. However, that does NOT give us the right to go on a rampage for three years to destroy people or their business and somehow claim to be protected by the First Amendment. Sounds like defamation to me...And another thing...How come everything this woman says is believed as absolute truth, and anything this Pastor tries to say is labeled as bigoted, hypocritical, unloving, mean-spirited, etc,etc. I bet if he were a Muslim cleric none of this would've ever happened...but I digress!! I applaud Pastor O'Neal for using his rights as an American citizen to protect himself and his family from this destructive, vindictive woman!!

According to the 1 Corinthians 6, this "pastor" brings shame to himself as well as the bride of Christ, the church.  I see this attitude creeping into the church.  It is a part of the NANC movement and it is a heresy.

 

" ... If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!

7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

Big time defamation.  Why is this guy only asking for $500K.  Calling me a criminal thang would get me suing for way more than that.  Have you seen the reviews on this church's site?  Holy batman this gals been busy.    Stalk blogs are smokescreens imho  to bury that original junk google removed cuz it was criminal stuff.  Go Mr. Oneil.  I'm rooting for your side. 

What is a “cult” and what is “spiritual abuse”? Those are key issues here in the differences of opinions expressed by Ms. Smith and Mr. O’Neal. I have spent some time studying these topics and perhaps the following will shed some light on the situation.

 

Eight psychological/sociological criteria for identifying an authoritarian leadership “cult” were developed over 50 years ago. They were described by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. He was first hired by the US government to interview released American P.O.W.s from the Korean conflict. Around the same time, a number of prisoners were being released from Communist China. So, while Dr. Lifton was in Hong Kong for the Korea P.O.W. assignment, he also interviewed a number of men and women - both Westerners and Chinese citizens - who had been imprisoned in China and subjected to the totalitarian systems there.

 

From this second set of case study interviews, he wrote the book, *Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of ‘Brainwashing’ in China.* Dr. Lifton’s eight criteria are consistently referenced in studies of political, religious, and social “cults.” You can read more about it on wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

 

In Christianity, the term “cult” is generally taken to mean a church, ministry, or other religious organization that holds to doctrines or practices that are theologically “unorthodox” or “heresy.” These deny the core Christian beliefs. Not all theological cults are also sociological-organizational cults in the sense that Dr. Lifton identified. However, those doing research and/or writing about “spiritual abuse” often find that theologically orthodox churches, ministries, leaders, etc., can clearly demonstrate one or more of Lifton’s characteristics of “cultic” organizations. For instance to paraphrase Dr. Lifton:

 

1. Control over information that participants are allowed to receive.

 

2. Creating and repeating highly slanted interpretations of situations so as to always favor the organization.

 

3. Requiring black-and-white thinking, perfectionism, and conformity or imposing guilt, shame, and control.

 

4. Extreme confession practices, the breaking of confidentiality, and exploiting of personal information.

 

5. Elevating the organization’s leaders and their views/doctrines to a position utterly beyond criticism.

 

6. Use of insider language and jargon that shuts down critical thinking.

 

7. Pressuring people to interpret all of their experiences in accord with the leaders’ doctrines.

 

8. Isolating, humiliating, and/or shunning current or former participants who do not measure up to the requirements of the leaders and organization.

 

In books, blogs, and other media, Christian leaders and/or organizations that demonstrate such characteristics are often labeled as “spiritually abusive” or “authoritarian” or “cult” or “cultic.”

 

As far as I know, none of these eight criteria has been turned into a legal definition. Still, relevant behaviors can be discerned and documented, but ultimately, doesn’t labeling someone or some organization as “spiritually abusive” etc. (or denying such labels) remain a matter of opinion?

 

As best I understand the legal issues involved here, for there to be defamation, Ms. Smith’s statements would have to be proven to be lies that were presented with malicious intent.

 

totally defamation.  this guys tooo nice.  These mouth gals are after him for years.  I would've sued back in the early years of this thing.  man her stalk blog is so sad.  Read the "no more tears" stuff.  Could be a new baby shampoo. 

Freedom of speech takes in a  whole lot of areas, some people may disagree with it but this is still America where you are allowed to voice your opinion.  O'Neal needs to move on with his life and not think he has hit the lottery. A man  of the cloth that acts in this way is not a real man of GOD and the statements are most likely true.

What this women did was definitely defamation...She needs to pay the $500,000.

Five legal/court documents for this case are available on the Citizen Media Law Project website:

 

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

 

People can read the actual facts of the accusations there for themselves.

 

Commenter Collin has put words into the mouths of both Mr. O’Neal and Ms. Smith that neither of them wrote.  Nowhere in the Beaverton Grace Bible Church Amended Complaint did Mr. O’Neal accuse Ms. Smith of calling him “a sex offender” or “a kiddie sex offender.” (See the Amended Complaint of April 26, 2012, lists the allegations of defamation by Julie Anne Smith in points A through Q on pages 3-5.)

 

slam dunk defamation.  mad lady wants revenge cuz guy is too Bible-y,  blabs he's a kiddie sex offender in "review" makes her feel better, google sees it and takes it down quick, mad lady gets madder, blames guy for google thing, blabs about him now with "spiritual abuse" spin to make it look cool n victim-y,  ruins guys rep and his family.  I think I should set up a blog about dermatological abuse.  She needs those things removed!

this guy is suing for a half million dollars because a former member who he had shunned called him a "Wolf". I'd say the shoe fits pretty well. As for the child molester at his church. I'm assuming parents bring their children to this church. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this. And before some religious nut tries to tell me about how the bible teaches forgiveness, let your kids go and hand around a ChiMo before you even consider opening your mouth.

Well matter of fact,it is kind of a cult.

Do the right thing and toss the suit.

that lady in the green shirt does not have 500,000 ..if she did, she'd dress better. 

Every time I write a review that the restaurant is really distributing porn, promoting pedophiles, stalking clients I get sued.  What's up with that?  Oh yeah, its called criminal defamation.  And silly Google takes down those criminal accusations in reviews because they're, well, criminal.  Finally a guy is standing up to a pack of brunhildas.  Look at all those women lined up on the wall. I think I saw them on the "faces of Walmart".  The one with the hooker shirt forgot she's supposed to be a Christian.  Sue for more Mr. Oneale.  That family in Texas got $14Million for way less than what you've been accued of.   

Well, if anybody's interested, back in around the 1998-2001 era the network provider where I worked received legal notices of lawsuits from Scientology on about a daily basis. Anytime anybody would criticize Scientology on the internet, their lawyers would sue ever provider through which the content routed.  Daily basis.  They would have sued KATU.COM for hosting negative comments about them.

 

I don't believe they've ever won a lawsuit for such a thing. This church is a bunch of idiots following a power-mongering, freedom-hating idiot.  Sue me.

This case isn't about free speech... it's about slander and/or defamation of character, which is not protected under the law. I think God's word says it best in Leviticus 19:16 "You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the Lord." More verses on slander...Matt. 15:9, Rom. 1:30, Eph. 4:31, Col. 3:8 and 1 Peter 2:1.

.