Cyber-Bullying Is Basis Of Defamation Claim.

A pastor and his wife brought suit alleging a cyber-bullying “hate campaign” against one of the church attendees who “began a discussion about [the pastor] on an internet forum” and also against one of the pastor’s sons who joined the church attendee in posting unflattering remarks about the pastor. The remarks included statements about child molestation, thefts, drug dealing and smuggling. Defendants moved to strike the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and the trial court determined the pastor is a limited purpose public figure who was required to prove defendants acted with malice in order to prevail on the defamation claim. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded the pastor and his wife demonstrated they could prevail on their claims, and denied the motion to strike. Stating the pastor’s “self-promotion as a spiritual leader guiding others on Christian morals did not open him up to public comment on private conduct” did not mean the pastor is a limited purpose public figure, the appellate court held the trial court erred in making its finding the pastor is a public figure. But the appellate court found the pastor could proceed with his defamation action because the internet comments “can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts that accuse [the pastor] of criminal conduct.” (Grenier v. Taylor (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; February 18, 2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 867].)