Strictly Legal: Satanic Temple loses defamation claim

A Satanic Temple in Washington state recently failed to persuade a federal court to reconsider its prior decision dismissing its claims against two rogue members who hijacked the temple’s social media accounts.

The court opted not to involve itself in the temple’s business. 

Two members of the temple who were approved administrators of the temple’s social media accounts took control of the accounts and blocked the temple’s access.  On one of the temple’s Facebook accounts, the rogue members changed the page’s name and issued a manifesto announcing that the page was no longer affiliated with the satanic temple because the temple had supported “ableism, misogyny, and racism,” transphobia, and police brutality. 

On one of the temple’s other Facebook pages, according to the temple, one of the rogue employees “levie[d] false claims that [The Satanic Temple] leadership is cozy with the alt-right, are white supremacists, [and] are generally insufficiently leftist.” Claiming the charges were false, the temple filed a federal lawsuit that included a claim for defamation.

According to the temple, its mission is to “encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will.” The claims made by the rogue members contradicted the stated mission. 

In any defamation suit, the plaintiff must establish that the alleged defamation is false.  That is a fundamental element of the claim.  For this reason, it’s not completely accurate to say that “truth is a defense” to defamation.  That implies the defendant has the burden of proving the statement is true.  But that is not the case.  The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the statement is false.

And that is where the Satanic Temple hit a roadblock.  In order to prove its case, the temple would need to prove that it does not espouse the various “isms” of which  the rogue employees accused it.  And to determine the falsity of the statements, the court would need to delve into the teachings of the Temple to verify that it did not in fact espouse those beliefs.

The court was unwilling to take that step, citing the doctrine of “ecclesiastical abstention.”  The doctrine essentially says that “civil courts may not determine the correctness of an interpretation of canonical text or some decision relating to government of” a religious body.  In short, the business of a religion is the religion’s business.  Because we adhere to the idea of the separation of Church and state, courts are not the place to litigate religious differences.  Here, two members of the Satanic Temple called out the temple for, I guess, not being sufficiently satanic.  The only way for the court to determine the falsity of that claim would be to litigate the teachings of the Temple.  And the court found it was not proper for it to do so.

The court probably came to the right decision (no word at this point if the temple plans to appeal), but it likely leaves the temple without a remedy.  No sympathy for the devil here apparently.

Jack Greiner is a partner at the Graydon law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.