Now a Libel Case (Over Allegations of a Non-Theological Struggle)

[Plaintiff] One for Israel is a ministry initiative whose mission is to evangelize Israelis and promote Messianic Judaism. [Plaintiffs] Eitan Bar … and Mordechai Vaknin … are missionaries working for the ministry who educate the New Testomony and share Gospel of Jesus Christ with youth, troopers, and college students…. The defendant is Yaron Reuven …, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who maintains an internet site, a cellular software, and a YouTube channel to advertise Orthodox Judaism….

On February 8, 2021, Reuven revealed a video titled, “What Occurred when Missionaries ONE FOR ISRAEL Met Rabbi Daniel Asor” during which he made the statements at challenge on this case. Reuven revealed the video on his YouTube channel, Fb, and different social media platforms. About 2 minutes and 37 seconds into the video, Reuven tells viewers a couple of assembly that occurred in 2014 at a coffeeshop in Israel. As associated on the video, Rabbi Asor met with Eitan and Vaknin to debate non secular points earlier than a person who was contemplating changing to Messianic Judaism.

On the assembly, Rabbi Asor “destroy[ed]” each Eitan and Vaknin by proving them improper. Reuven studies that Eitan and Vaknin bought indignant and tried to beat up Rabbi Asor. He says Eitan and Vaknin “tried to interrupt his bones!”

Plaintiffs contend the story Reuven instructed is fake and an invention to negatively painting them and the group for which they work. The video has over 7,500 views on YouTube. Plaintiffs allege they’ve suffered vital reputational and psychological injury due to the discharge of the video and introduced this motion looking for compensation from Reuven.

The court docket concluded the missionaries weren’t restricted objective public figures, as a result of that will require them to have injected themselves right into a “public controversy,” and there was no such controversy right here:

[T]he public controversy should be greater than merely newsworthy; the general public should legitimately be involved about it. Reuven argues that the general public controversy right here is the “theological battle between Judaism and Christian missionaries.” Whereas this “battle” could also be of deep and abiding curiosity to many, it’s actually not one thing mentioned within the information or that the general public is extremely involved with. Examples of public controversies in earlier circumstances have included the Watergate scandal; what ought to be taught about homosexuality and whether or not the rights of homosexuals ought to be restricted; and the 2004 election. Theological debates don’t generate comparable public controversy.

I am skeptical about that, since controversies that predominantly concern explicit non secular communities—and will have gotten little consideration outdoors these communities—would qualify. See, e.g., Up to date Mission Co. v. N.Y. Occasions Co. (second Cir. 1988). However the court docket’s different level could also be extra apt right here:

[T]he defamatory statements made by Reuven [also] don’t have any relevance to the non secular battle. “[T]he regulation doesn’t permit the related public controversy to be divorced from the allegedly defamatory statements and the context during which they have been made.” On this case, Reuven stated the Plaintiffs violently attacked Rabbi Asor at a debate. The accusation of violence just isn’t associated to the alleged controversy of the theological debate. Reuven’s statements didn’t pertain to faith or the views of Judaism and Christianity; as an alternative, they have been in regards to the character and conduct of two people…. Thus, the Courtroom concludes that Plaintiffs are usually not restricted public figures and never required to show that Reuven acted with precise malice.

The Courtroom then concluded that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged defamation, as outlined by Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp (Fla. 2008). (In an odd coincidence, a key Florida precedent right here concerned a distinct group of Messianic Jews, although in that case as false gentle defendants moderately than libel plaintiffs.)

Plaintiffs allege details that will plausibly set up falsity. Not solely do each Eitan and Mordechai declare that the story Reuven instructed was false, but additionally Rabbi Asor who was the particular person allegedly attacked on the café said that the story was false….

Plaintiffs have [also] plausibly alleged that Reuven was negligent in publishing defamatory content material with out first verifying the knowledge. Reuven stated he heard the story from a “third get together who was intimately accustomed to Rabbi Asor.” … Solely after this lawsuit was initiated and the video seen over 7,500 instances, did Reuven contact Rabbi Asor to confirm the story. This reveals that it was potential for Reuven to acquire extra correct data earlier than publishing the video, however he selected not to take action….

Plaintiffs allege precise damages within the type of reputational hurt, a rise in threats of potential violence, and extreme emotional misery and private bodily damage…. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege sufficient to proceed on a declare of defamation per se[, which] would permit plaintiffs to get well for defamation with out proof of precise damages … as a result of the statements charged the Plaintiffs with an notorious crime and injured the Plaintiffs’ career as missionaries…. The video instructed viewers that Eitan and Vaknin dedicated assault and battery to a non secular chief who didn’t agree with their beliefs. One can draw an inexpensive inference that such a press release would seemingly have a major influence on the career of a missionary….

And the court docket rejected Reuven’s “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” argument:

Reuven argues that to resolve the controversy at hand, the court docket should get entangled in non secular questions as a result of the judgment will contain a willpower of the rights and roles of a rabbi…. [But t]he statements stated within the video don’t have anything to do with faith; they have been a couple of violent assault that didn’t occur. These points don’t have anything to do with non secular doctrine or battle. In contrast, beneath the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a court docket is not going to rule on a case that requires it to outline the “very core or what the non secular physique as an entire believes.”

Congratulations to Richard P. Inexperienced (Lewis, Longman & Walker) and Todd V. McMurtry  & J. Will Huber (Hemmer Defrank Wessels, PLLC), who represented the plaintiffs.