Mixed Nevada S. Ct. Anti-SLAPP Decision as to #TheyLied Sexual Assault Defamation Claim Brought by Nickolas Carter (Backstreet Boys)
From Ruth v. Carter, decided Tuesday by the Nevada Supreme Court:
Appellant Shannon Ruth sued respondent Nickolas Carter for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that Carter sexually assaulted Ruth following a Backstreet Boys concert in 2001, and that Carter had also sexually assaulted several other women. Carter asserted counterclaims for defamation [and related torts] …. Carter’s counterclaims were based on statements by Ruth that generally alleged that Carter sexually assaulted Ruth and that Carter is a “serial” rapist and abuser of “multiple people.”
Ruth moved to dismiss Carter’s counterclaims under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes, which require a two-prong analysis:
First, the district court must determine whether the defendant has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff’s “claim is based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern.” If the defendant satisfies the first prong, the burden shifts to the plaintiff under the second prong to show “with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim.” Only a claim that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—i.e., a claim based on a good faith communication and that lacks minimal merit—is subject to dismissal. Because Ruth filed the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss Carter’s counterclaims, Carter is the plaintiff and Ruth is the defendant for purposes of the anti-SLAPP analysis.
The court concluded that Ruth’s statements accusing Carter of assaulting her weren’t subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute (so that Carter’s defamation case as to those matters can go forward):
The [key] issue is whether Ruth established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the communications were made in good faith—that the communications were “truthful or made without knowledge of [their] falsehood.” Rather than looking to the individual words, we ask “‘whether a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the gist of the stor
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
