The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC

Background

The Satanic Temple, Inc. brought a defamation lawsuit against Newsweek Magazine LLC and Julia Duin based on statements in Duin’s article, “Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit.” The article discussed a prior related proceeding involving The Satanic Temple and accusations by former members, including allegations concerning financial conduct, sexual misconduct, and harassment of dissenters.

Duin moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that the Southern District of New York lacked personal jurisdiction over her. Both defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient defamation claim. The court treated the complaint’s reference to “libel per se and libel per quod” as a claim for defamation by implication.

Personal jurisdiction over Duin

The court granted Duin’s jurisdictional motion. In a defamation case, New York’s long-arm statute requires more than distributing an allegedly defamatory statement in New York. The plaintiff must show additional activity connected to the statement, such as creating, researching, writing, developing, or producing the content in New York.

The Satanic Temple did not allege that Duin researched, interviewed sources, or drafted any part of the article in New York. Its argument that Duin was subject to jurisdiction because she allegedly worked for Newsweek, which the opinion describes as a New York company, was unsupported. The court also denied the request for jurisdictional discovery because the court would lack jurisdiction regardless of whether Duin was an employee or an independent contractor. The court declined to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts because the record showed, at most, a questionable basis for jurisdiction there.

Public-figure issue

The court rejected defendants’ argument that The Satanic Temple was a general-purpose public figure. Defendants did not provide enough information to show that the organization had achieved the required level of national prominence. The court also concluded that defendants had not shown, at this stage, that The Satanic Temple was a limited-purpose public figure. Filing lawsuits to protect members’ religious rights, even when the lawsuits attract attention, did not by itself show that the organization had voluntarily entered a public controversy to influence others.

Defamation analysis

Under New York law, a defamation claim generally requires a false statement published to a third party, at least negligent fault, and either special harm or a statement considered defamatory without proof of specific harm. Opinions are protected, but an otherwise truthful publication may support defamation by implication if it can reasonably be read to communicate a defamatory inference and to show that the author intended or endorsed that inference.

The court rejected The Satanic Temple’s claims based on the article’s discussion of alleged financial fraud. The article’s references to a lawsuit against Twitter did not suggest financial fraud, and the complaint did not adequately allege that the statement about members being removed for asking for financial records was false or misleading.

The court also rejected the claims concerning sexual deviancy. The article reported allegations about activities described in a memorandum, and The Satanic Temple did not dispute that the memorandum existed. The court found that the article’s balanced discussion of the memorandum did not plausibly allege a false or defamatory statement. The court reached a different conclusion about the article’s report of allegations that sexual abuse had been covered up. The Satanic Temple denied that abuse or a cover-up had occurred, and the article did not include that denial or explain whether a response had been requested. The court found that this statement was plausibly defamatory and allowed that part of the claim to survive.

The court rejected claims that the article misrepresented the prior related proceeding or implied that The Satanic Temple pursued frivolous lawsuits. It found that the article materially reported the dismissal of that earlier case, and that any inference that The Satanic Temple wasted money on frivolous litigation was not shown to have been intended or endorsed by the defendants. The headline’s reference to a lawsuit did not support a claim because a reader who continued past the headline would learn that The Satanic Temple had brought the lawsuit.

The court dismissed the claim based on the article’s statement that it was unclear whether The Satanic Temple actually practiced abortion as a religious ritual. The statement used speculative language and was a protected opinion rather than a factual assertion.

The court also rejected claims based on statements about alleged connections to alt-right media figures and structural changes intended “apparently” to make the organization appear more like a mainstream church. The court found that these statements did not reasonably imply that The Satanic Temple defrauded the public, and that the statement about the purpose of the structural changes was an opinion.

The court rejected most claims concerning alleged harassment of dissenters. Statements about the prior related proceeding, defense costs, and bankruptcy did not themselves imply wrongful harassment, and The Satanic Temple did not adequately allege that defendants intended or endorsed that inference. The court separately considered statements attributed to former members describing threats and pressure against dissenters. Although those statements clearly could support an inference that The Satanic Temple harassed dissenters, the article attributed them to former members and presented The Satanic Temple’s response. The court found that this balanced reporting prevented a finding of defamation.

Finally, the court rejected claims based on statements referring to unspecified “terrible” acts and possible government auditing. The statements themselves indicated that the sources could not substantiate the alleged acts and could not obtain an audit, which undermined rather than supported the claimed defamatory implication.

Disposition

The court granted Duin’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied The Satanic Temple’s request for oral argument and directed the clerk to close the relevant motions.