You may remember that in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, Glenn Beck claimed that it had been partially financed by an Arab student injured in the blast–an accusation that was completely false. Earlier this year, that student sued Beck for defamation. Now Beck’s lawyers have responded to the suit with the argument that those smears are protected speech because the victim is a “public figure.”
For those who missed it, Abdulrahman Alharbi, a student from Saudi Arabia, was on his way to meet friends for lunch when the bombs went off. He was treated at the hospital for severe burns. He was kept under guard for most of the night, and was unable to communicate with relatives back home; according to an interview he gave to The Islamic Monthly in May 2013, his father only learned about the extent of his injuries on Twitter. Alharbi voluntarily agreed to let them search his home in Revere, five miles north of Boston. That search turned up nothing.
By early Tuesday, the media had gotten its hands on his name and address. Also by this time, Beck was claiming on-air that Alharbi was actively involved in the bombings. He kept this up even after The Washington Post completely exonerated him later on Tuesday, revealing that he was a witness and not a suspect. A week after the bombing, Beck claimed that Alharbi was about to be deported to Saudi Arabia, and that the only reason he was still in this country was that someone was protecting him. As late as May, long after Alharbi was acquitted, Beck continued to claim that he was involved in the bombing–even after retired INS agent Bob Trent smacked that theory down on Beck’s own show.
Alharbi wasn’t taking this lying down, and in March he sued Beck for defamation with malice. Read Alharbi’s complaint here. Also named as defendants are Beck’s production company, Mercury Radio Arts, his television network, TheBlaze, and his radio distributor, Premiere Radio Networks. On the face of it, it didn’t look like Beck had a leg to stand on, which makes his attorneys’ response even more surprising. According to the filing, Beck contends that Alharbi is a public figure, and therefore has to meet a much higher standard in order to win his case. Specifically, they say, Alharbi has to prove that Beck made his statements about Alharbi with actual malice–i. e., that Beck knew the statements or false or demonstrated reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. They also claim that Beck’s remarks were constitutionally-protected criticism of the federal government’s handling of national security.
I have to wonder if Beck really wants to go this route. So he says Alharbi has to prove actual malice? Fine. As I mentioned earlier, Beck kept up his smear campaign after being told on his own show that his conspiracy theory was bogus. Sounds like knowledge of falsity, doesn’t it? Although theoretically Alharbi only has to prove negligence, that probably explains why he’s swinging for the fence and claiming actual malice. But even without that to consider, no one seriously believes that being a suspect or witness in a crime is enough to make someone a public figure. The most benign interpretation of this is that Beck knows he stepped in it, and is grabbing at straws to stave off having to admit what he did.
The implications of this are potentially stratospheric. As near as I can determine, a major right-wing radio host has never been found liable for slander or libel before. If Alharbi wins, it could potentially be the beginning of the end for Beck. Also, Premiere is Rush Limbaugh’s distributor. Given the severe beating Limbaugh has taken in the ratings since his ugly attack on Sandra Fluke, if Premiere is found liable for Beck’s smear of Alharbi it could potentially be another nail in Limbaugh’s coffin.
Edited/Published by: SB
Darrell Lucus is a radical-lefty Jesus-lover who has been blogging for change for a decade. Follow him on Twitter @DarrellLucus or connect with him on Facebook.
