A decision that is particularly interesting as we today commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 has just become available on LEXIS, even though it was handed down almost 8 weeks ago by a state trial court in Boston. Islamic Society of Boston v. Boston Herald, Inc., 2006 Mass. Super. LEXIS 391 (Super. Ct., Suffolk Co., July 20, 2006), grows out of efforts of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) to build a new mosque in Roxbury on land that was part of an urban redevelopment project. The mosque purchased land from the Boston redevelopment authority for the mosque. (See prior posting.) However a media campaign and litigation in opposition to the mosque developed by individuals who asserted that ISB was directly connected to and funded by radical terrorist organizations. This publicity prevented ISB from raising sufficient funds to finally build the mosque.
At that point, ISB and two individuals connected with it brought a defamation action alleging that their public vilification damaged their reputation and led to donors being unwilling to contribute funds to ISB. Defendants in the case responded by asserting that the defamation action is barred by Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP statute -- a law designed to prevent use of lawsuits against citizens who petition the government on a matter under review, or to encourage such review. In this decision, the court holds that the anti-SLAPP law does not bar the defamation action because the challenged statements were made to turn public opinion against ISB, and not to affect or obtain government review of the mosque project.
The court concluded: "The instant case not only involves a claim for libel but it also touches on the right to the free exercise of one's religion: The Complaint ... alleges that ... that [plaintiffs] were targeted because they were Muslim, in violation of their civil rights. To prevent them from pursuing relief at this early juncture ... would come dangerously close to applying [the anti-SLAPP law] in an unconstitutional manner."
