In a recent case of Godlewski v. Kelly, Judge Terrence Nealon presided over a dispute involving a self-proclaimed “patriot reporter” who is deeply involved in the QAnon movement. This individual, who claims to earn millions from his QAnon broadcasts, filed a lawsuit for defamation and false light invasion of privacy against a newspaper and its columnist. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published on February 14, 2021, which highlighted the QAnon broadcaster’s past criminal conviction for corruption of a minor.
One of the key points of contention was the QAnon broadcaster’s guilty plea in a previous case, where he admitted to engaging in inappropriate text messages and sexual activity with a minor. Despite his claims that certain statements in the article were false and defamatory, the court found that based on his guilty plea and the evidence presented, the statements were in fact true.
Additionally, the QAnon broadcaster alleged that the article portrayed him in a negative light by suggesting he was not fit to be a realtor and questioning his involvement in the Capitol insurrection. However, the court ruled that these claims were not supported by sufficient evidence and did not amount to defamation.
Overall, the court’s decision in Godlewski v. Kelly highlights the complexities of balancing freedom of speech with protection against false and damaging statements. Godlewski’s fitness as a realtor has been questioned due to his involvement in QAnon activities. The use of the phrase “rabbit hole” in reference to QAnon and its followers has been noted in legal literature. Prior to the publication of the article in question, Godlewski made public statements promoting baseless QAnon conspiracy theories. The article in question used satire and parody in describing Godlewski’s involvement in QAnon.
Despite Godlewski’s claims, the article did not falsely tie him to criminal acts during the Capitol riot. The references to Godlewski’s involvement in the QAnon movement were based on his own social media posts. The article’s characterization of Godlewski as a “purveyor of poison” was satirical commentary based on his promotion of QAnon theories.
In summary, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that the article made false statements about Godlewski. The defendants, including John Cole of The Scranton Times, were granted summary judgment in the case.
Source link
