Muslim victim of Boston Marathon bombing sues Glenn Beck for defamation and slander

(By Travis Gettys)

Muslim victim of Boston Marathon bombing sues Glenn Beck for defamation and slander (via Raw Story )

A Muslim victim of the Boston Marathon bombing has sued Glenn Beck for defamation and slander after the talk show host accused him of funding the attacks. Race spectator Abdulrahman Alharbi filed a federal lawsuit against Beck and his companies, The…


Misidentifying the Boston Bombers

3 Responses

  1. Kudos to Mr. Alharbi for doing the one thing these idiot race-baiters fear the most… whatever might decrease the bloated incomes they make by peddling fear & hatred. I only hope he’s not put off by a generous settlement offer since seeing headlines about Beck & the Blaze being forced to pay compensation & damages for lying (which they’ve been getting by with for far too many years without ‘paying the piper’) would be just f**king delicious!

  2. Been a while since I went over libel law. But my sense is that Beck’s defense would be that he is simply voicing an opinion, which is First Amendment protected. Weirdly, if Beck had said that someone else said Alharbi was a terrorist, and failed to make an effort to call Alharbi, there’s grounds for a libel suit. If that seems odd, welcome to American libel law.

    It would depend a lot on the way the US District Courts see defamation tho. At the state level it varies. California has a slightly more plaintiff-friendly environment than other states. (Famously, California is a “truth is no defense” state, which sounds awful but stems from the Carol Burnett v Enquirer case).

    That said, it seems to me on the face of it that it would be difficult (not impossible) to win a judgement against Beck, depending on what his defense team strategy is. Again, if he says he was just voicing his opinion, then he might be able to walk away. I am not entirely sure of this, though, IANAL.

  3. Beck made a whole series of remarks that, if the reporting of them in the Washington Post is correct, defame this man (provided he hasn’t done anything bad, anything we don’t know about). Besides asserting “we know he is a very bad, bad, bad man,” Beck said the government had “tagged” him “a proven terrorist.” That accusation, by the way, which Beck alleges was made by a party other than himself, is one that falls into the category of charges that even Jesse says is libelous. In addition, Beck called Alharbi an al-Qaeda “control agent” and the “money man” behind the attacks. “You know who the Saudi is?” Beck asked. “He’s the money man. He’s the guy who paid for it.” “Is this speculation or are you reporting something?” a co-host asked. Beck ignored the question. “He’s the money man.” According to the Washington Post, these kinds of attacks were repeated over a series of days. Whether the Saudi is a member of Al Quaeda, a proven terrorist, someone involved in the attacks and/or the “money man” behind them are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact, and to avoid libel, Beck would have to prove them. If he can’t, he’ll lose. Furthermore, he may well be guilty of “actual malice,” of making his charges with “reckless disregard” of whether they were true.

Comments are closed.