From Judge Paul Maloney's decision Friday in Al Qassimi Academy v. Abuhaltam (W.D. Mich.):
[Plaintiff] Al Qassimi Academy is an educational and religious institution serving the Muslim Arabic community in Israel. [Plaintiff] Abd Al-Raof Al-Qawasmi is a director and trustee on the Board of the Academy. He is also a member of the clergy in the Islamic community. Defendant resides in Okemos, Michigan. Using Facebook and other social media platforms, Defendant insults and mocks the Academy, its leaders and its faculty members.
Plaintiffs contend [in paragraph 41 of the Complaint that] Defendant has made the following [defamatory statements]:
[A.] calls for riots and violence against Al-Qasemi Academy and Al-Qasemi institutions.
[B.] using fighting words and inciting violence against the Plaintiff's Board members, educational staff, and their families, and thereby endangering their lives.
[C.] Defendant Abuhaltam uses computer graphic techniques such as Photoshop or other similar software tools to create images and/or change the shapes to mock, insult, defame, and slander the Plaintiff and its members.
[D]. Defendant Abuhaltam accuses Plaintiff and its members as "agents" and "proxies" of the government of Israel, thereby endangering their lives and property….
[F.] Defendant Abuhaltam posts slanderous and defamatory cartoon images of the Plaintiff's leaders and its members as "pigs" and other "pig-like" images. Pigs are considered by Muslims as vile, derogatory, disparaging, and filthy. Being depicted as pigs is the equivalent of an accusation of being heathens and disbelievers.
Plaintiffs make similar and other factual allegations about statements made by Defendant in paragraph 43, which is part of the claim for defamation.
[A.] accusing plaintiff Academy with "takfeer" repeatedly sharing footage and images on social media threatening and intimidating the Academy….
[C.] Calls for a riot and violence against the Al-Qasemi Academy and Al- Qasemi institutions.
[D.] Calls for damaging and destroying Al-Qasemi Academy property and disabling Academy equipment and computers.
[E.] Defendants' communication accounts on social media networks invite people through Facebook to commit acts of violence or sabotage against the Academy.
[But m]ost of the allegations in Paragraphs 31 and 43 do not assert facts about Plaintiffs that can be provable as false. Defendant's calls for riots and acts of violence might not be protected speech, but those statements involve a different category of unprotected speech, not defamation. Defendant's use of imagery (the cartoons) constitutes protected speech as parody or satire. Defendant's porcine analogies, while insulting, would not be considered factual allegations; no reasonable person would believe that Plaintiffs are pigs.
Also problematic, the complaint does not plead the facts with sufficient specificity. Plaintiffs summarize Defendant's statements, which does not satisfy the pleading rules for defamation. The summaries do not provide the context for the statements, which a court must consider when analyzing defamation claims. The court acknowledges that Plaintiffs attach over fifty pages of Defendant's statements on social media as exhibits to the complaint. Most of Defendant's statements are written in Arabic, and many of those statements have been translated. But the allegations in Paragraphs 31 and 43 do not reference any particular page in the exhibit (or, for that matter, the exhibit at all).
Based on Plaintiffs' characterization of Defendant's social media posts, Defendant's accusations that Plaintiffs are agents of Israel do not constitute defamation. Defendant's assertions amount to opinions about Plaintiffs. Defendant's choice of forum for his statements weighs against the conclusion that the statements constitute assertions of fact. Through social media platforms, Defendant engages in "rhetorical hyperbole, [] vigorous epithet[s], and loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" and such statements "cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual." Reasonable people would not interpret Defendant's antagonistic rants as assertions of fact….
For similar reasons, the court also rejected plaintiffs' false light claims; and the court also rejected several other claims as well. As to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court concluded:
The allegation that Plaintiffs are agents of Israel constitutes an opinion and enjoys the protection of the First Amendment… The complaint pleads a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim without further factual details. Plaintiffs provide no facts, no examples, and no details to support the assertion that Defendant uses "fighting words and incite[s] violence against" [any of the Plaintiffs].
Andrew J. Gerdes represents defendant. In 2023, I blogged about an earlier decision in the same case that rejected a request for a temporary restraining order.
The post No Defamation Liability for "Antagonistic Rants" Against Israeli Muslim Educational Institution, Including Claims It's Agent of Israeli Government appeared first on Reason.com.
