Church sues OR woman for online defamation

[Opti]

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11698334-oregon-mom-sued-by-church-over-online-criticism?lite

An Oregon mother of seven is being sued for defamation by her former church over critical comments she made online.

Julie Anne Smith, a stay-at-home mom who home-schools her children, said church members began shunning her and her family after they left Beaverton Grace Bible Church almost four years ago.

She took to the Web in October 2009 to air her concerns about the church's practices on Google reviews, but said her comments kept being pushed down by other church members' more recent reviews. So in February of this year, Smith launched a blog called Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors to counteract what she called the "cat and mouse game" on Google.

Advertise | AdChoices"My primary issue was to discuss spiritual abuse in the church,” Smith told msnbc.com. “In essence, the legal suit is [O'Neal's] attempt of continuing that spiritual abuse.”

But days after Smith launched her blog, pastor Charles O'Neal filed a $500,000 lawsuit against Smith, her daughter and three other former church members, claiming some of the comments posted online amounted to defamation. O'Neal has been the pastor of the church for 13 years.

"We have not gone hastily to court," O'Neal said in a statement released to msnbc.com. "For three and a half years this group has been engaged in a public, church to church, and World Wide Web defamation, showing their willingness to discredit God, harm the church, harm wives, harm children, and harm the testimony of Christ's Gospel."

"It is BGBC's firm conviction that this cannot continue," he added.

In reaction to O'Neal's lawsuit, Smith's attorney filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the suit. The motion, which is meant to protect individuals sued for exercising their constitutionally protected rights, will go before a judge on May 21.

[mmhmm]

I'm going to move this to Religious Discussion, Optimist. It's more a religious issue than a political issue.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[Opti]

Mmhmm, I have a feeling it is more about how the church acted versus religious doctrine disputes but I had a feeling a mod might move it. I just didn't anticpate it happening while I was updating it with the link and some edits. I went with a less is less to do over approach the second time.

ETA: It is also a legal dispute versus say what transpired at a denominational church convention.

[billisonboard]

Without detail as to what was being posted, tough to make a call on this one. I am glad, however, that there seems to be a quick way to get it dismissed if what was posted wasn't over the top.

[Opti]

I went to her blog to see if I could find anything since given the thread has been moved here odds are no one else will. The first page of blog posts were too general and more on the case at hand so no help there.

What I finally found was a blog post on rules for dress at the church and how it hurt their son who is 6'8" and thus hard to find long enough clothing for. My laptop seized up trying to get the full post, so this is what I was able to successfully copy-

My family didn’t have too many problems with modesty. Prior to coming to BGBC, we didn’t have any “formal” teaching on modesty. It was a natural and seemingly obvious idea that one would dress in a way that would reflect an image that Christ would want us to have. If God seemed concerned with the heart, so should we. If certain clothing invited roaming eyes to zero in on specific body parts, then it made sense to avoid those styles of clothing. This was a simple solution with no rigid rules, just basic common sense.



At BGBC, we were told how we should and should not dress - specific guidelines, such as do not expose skin above the knees - especially the thighs. We found very quickly that there was a lot of attention focused on this issue - and in my opinion, a very unhealthy amount of attention. In another post I will discuss how I believe the modesty rules backfired.

[Tennesseer]

It appears it's all about control. You also see it in FLDS and Scientology.

[Opti]

Scientology is scary IMO. They sue people regularly and that can be the lesser end of it.

[billisonboard]

Sounds like a classic SLAPP suit. Anti-SLAPP sounds like it could be the ticket.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Yeah, I know it is wiki.

[mmhmm]

May 16, 2012 14:50:40 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mmhmm, I have a feeling it is more about how the church acted versus religious doctrine disputes but I had a feeling a mod might move it. I just didn't anticpate it happening while I was updating it with the link and some edits. I went with a less is less to do over approach the second time.

ETA: It is also a legal dispute versus say what transpired at a denominational church convention.

I do understand your viewpoint, Optimist; however, this is not about politics and it's not about the markets. Religious Discussion is as close as we can come. When the church/religions are involved, things sometimes get ugly on P&M. Here, that can't happen without those who make it ugly being prevented from posting in this forum. This keeps us from having to ban all discussions involving religion.

[Deleted]

This story sounds like this to me for reasons I cannot say..

[Opti]

Sorry to hear that h2h. I noticed she had stories from others on her blog and links for help.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2012 20:07:23 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sorry to hear that h2h. I noticed she had stories from others on her blog and links for help.

Oh, Optmist.. Nothing personal as far as your considering posting this here at all.. It is very relative to something else I am in the midst of is all.. I hope you are able to pin down more on this story and bring here for me and maybe others to read..