Religious Libel/Defamation

[KnownOne]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

A few questions regarding my friend, whom we'll call Bob, publishing possibly libelous and/or defamatory material about Scientology in a local newspaper:

1. Can a church use the court system to recover "damages" (I'll address below) resulting from the publication of libelous material? I ask this because of the separation of church and state. It would seem since the government does not tax the church, the church would not be able to tax the government through using the courts.

2. What damages can a church sustain from such a publication? Hurt feelings don't count . Loss of membership, to the best of my knowledge, would not be valid. I compare this to such claims as "loss of affection" - can't sue someone for stealing your lover, now can you. Same with belief, someone will leave the church if they don't believe (or were "converted") and the church can't recover from that.

3. Maybe loss of income? It seems the church would also not be able to recover this because it collects 10% from members (believers) of the church. If someone changes their mind and leaves the church (due to external intervention), the church is in no way entitled to the money.

So, in a nutshell, can the church successfully sue Bob in a libel case?

 

[Proserpina]

Soooooo..is this homework?

 

[Proserpina]

(The very short answer is: Yes. Anything is possible)

 

[KnownOne]

Soooooo..is this homework?

Like the layout?

No, it's a rather thought out list of scenarios for Bob. I do not believe many outside of Dallas will even know of it, but I just want to be on the safe side.

 

[KnownOne]

(The very short answer is: Yes. Anything is possible)

Thank you! All I needed to know!

 

[Proserpina]

Thank you! All I needed to know!

Hint:

I do not believe you actually asked the right question...

 

[KnownOne]

Hint:

I do not believe you actually asked the right question...

Alrighty, let me take another stab at it:
Will the church prevail in a lawsuit against Bob should they sue Bob over the libelous material which he authored and the newspaper published.

I assume the same answer (minus the "anything is possible")? Or am I still asking the wrong question?

 

[quincy]

The Church of Scientology has sued for defamation (and copyright infringement and trademark infringement) in the past. Several times, in fact. The suits filed by the Church have been brought against the media and also individuals, not only in the US but in several countries around the world.

Whether the Church of Scientology could win a defamation suit would depend on all of the facts. They have not had much success so far, however, and, in addition, they have been fined for filing frivolous lawsuits, with their attempts to silence critics of the Church through their use of court actions.

 

[Proserpina]

And interestingly, the Church of Scientology itself has been successfully sued for defamation at least once - the one which springs to mind was a case in Canada where the Church itself and one individual were held jointly liable for some rather large damages.

I'll dig up the actual case and post more details later once I find it.

 

[quincy]

You are thinking, perhaps, of the defamation action Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto and Morris Manning, 1993 Can LII 1348; 1995 2 S.C.R. 1130.

Damages to Hill were awarded in amounts over $1.5 million. The Church and Manning were held jointly liable.

 

[Proserpina]

You are thinking, perhaps, of the defamation action Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto and Morris Manning, 1993 Can LII 1348; 1995 2 S.C.R. 1130.

Damages to Hill were awarded in amounts over $1.5 million. The Church and Manning were held jointly liable.

You are wonderful..thank you!

 

[quincy]

You're welcome.

The Hill case illustrates nicely some of the differences between U.S. defamation laws and Canadian defamation laws although, interestingly, U.S. case law is often quoted and used in Canadian court cases. We don't see the reverse happen too often (if ever) here.