Rachel Maddow Fights Back!

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has struck a blow against former heavy metal drummer turned extreme anti-gay preacher/radio host Bradlee Dean, by filing an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss his lawsuit in court this week.
Dean filed a 50 million dollar defamation suit against Maddow last summer claiming that the broadcaster misconstrued his words. Dean stated, “I once made reference to how even Muslims oppose homosexuality under Shariah law. I did not suggest that I condoned the methods that radical Muslims use to enforce Shariah law, but made this analogy to prod Christians to become more concerned about what was going on in our schools with the nation’s youth.”  Below is the exact quote on which Maddow commented.
"Muslims are calling for the execution of homosexuals in America. They themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than the American Christians do. Because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination. If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."

Dean charged Maddow with deliberately ignoring a disclaimer that he issued which stressed that he was not calling for gay people to be killed. He said Maddow's airing of his statement caused "serious" harm to him and the ministry he runs.
Actually, Maddow did read the disclaimer--"we have never and will never call for the execution of homosexuals"--just after airing Dean's statement.
Maddow’s contention, “The broadcast truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15 statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15 radio show. Dean does not—and cannot—allege that he did not make those controversial statements,” her petition to dismiss the case argues. “The fact that NBCUniversal broadcast the essence but not the entirety of what Dean said during that radio show, as he now protests, does not change this analysis. Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash…As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.”
The defendants, Maddow, MSNBC, and NBCU responded in court this week, citing that the First Amendment protects Maddow’s commentary. They outlined three reasons in a 51-page motion to dismiss.

1. “One, the broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s may 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show. Dean does not – and cannot – allege that he did not make those controversial statements. The fact that NBCUniversal broadcast the essence but not the entirety of what Dean said during that radio show, as he now protests, does not change this analysis. Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.”
2. “Two, the commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers.”
3. “Three, the fair comments privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements. Viewers are free to make up their own minds as to whether they agreed with Maddow’s remarks.”

According to Laura Handman, representative for the defendants, Dean’s lawsuit , “reads as a political tirade against NBCUniversal and it’s on air hosts, especially Maddow, for their support of liberal causes and their alleged ‘attacks’ on Congresswoman Bachmann, who is notably not a plaintiff in this action.”
It would seem that the real aim of the lawsuit is to dissuade through legal action, free speech.  It wouldn’t be the first time massive lawsuits have been thrown at reporters, bloggers and on-air personalities in an effort to silence them and their opposing views.
However, in this case Maddow, MSNBC  and NBCU may just have the last laugh. Their anti –SLAPP (anti-SLAPP act of 2010, dissuades lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech) motion provides that should the case be dismissed Bradlee Dean would be accountable for all legal fees incurred.