In
Rashada v. New York Post, (NY Co. Sup. Ct., Aug 11, 2011), a New York trial court dismissed a defamation action (
full text of 1/20/2011 complaint) brought by a female teacher at a mosque in Newburgh, New York who is also a chaplain in the New York prison system. Plaintiff, Melody Rashada, sued the New York Post and Patrick Dunleavy over an article by Dunleavy published in the Post in Sept. 2010 titled
Converts to Terror: The Prison Chaplain Problem. The article, focusing on four defendants who were on trial on terrorism related charges, asked how the defendants were radicalized to the point that they would consider bombing synagogues in the Bronx and shooting down an aircraft with missiles. Dunleavy's column said said:
What stands out is the prison connection. All four defendants were former inmates. More important, all three imams at the mosque in Newburgh that the defendants attended after being released from prison had a connection with the prison system. Imams Salahuddin Muhammad, Hamin Rashada and Melody Rashada worked for the Department of Correctional Services. All had been hired by Warith Deen Umar -- who for years headed ministerial services for the New York state prison system.
Rashada argued that this language, together with the title of the column, was defamatory because it suggested that she and the other two imams engage in the radicalization of prison inmates. The court conluded, however:
In the context of a defamation action, “expressions of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are deemed privileged and no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation.”...
In this case, both the context of the article itself and its broader social context indicate that it should be treated as non-actionable opinion. The article was printed under the multicolored and bolded heading “POST OPINION,” which alerted all readers that the article they were about to read was the opinion of Dunleavy.... Moreover, the broader social context of the article - the radicalization of prison inmates, leading them to engage in terrorist activity - is a topic which is intended to create much discussion and debate, and a topic on which a verifiable conclusion is neither expected nor delivered.
