Glenn Beck, TheBlaze Settle Teen Clock-Maker Libel Suit
Law360, Dallas (October 25, 2017, 7:10 PM EDT) -- A Dallas-area teen who made national headlines after he was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school has reached a settlement with Glenn Beck and his news network TheBlaze Inc. after his libel claims against the conservative commentator were dropped by a trial court.
The Fifth Court of Appeals agreed Tuesday to partially dismiss an appeal in which Ahmed Mohamed and his father, Mohamed Mohamed, sought to revive claims a handful of pundits had made defamatory comments about the teen, in light of the settlement reached with Beck and TheBlaze. Still pending is the Mohameds’ appeal of the dismissal of their claims against commentators Jim Hanson of the Center for Security Policy and Ben Shapiro.
A Dallas trial judge in January and February dismissed the Mohameds’ claims against Beck, Hanson and Shapiro under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a free speech law intended to provide for early dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. The Mohameds were ordered to pay a total of more than $270,000 in attorneys’ fees to the defendants.
Michael Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig LLP, an attorney for Beck and TheBlaze, declined to comment Wednesday, saying the terms of the settlement are confidential.
Lawyers for the Mohameds did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the settlement or the pending appeals. Lawyers for Shapiro and Hanson did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the pending appeals.
Ahmed Mohamed was a 14-year-old high school student in Irving, Texas, when he brought a homemade alarm clock to school. One of his teachers apparently thought the device was a bomb, and Mohamed was arrested and suspended from school, then cast into a media spotlight as news of his arrest spread.
Much of the commentary following news of his arrest was supportive of Mohamed — even then-President Barack Obama weighed in to praise his love of science. But other commentators said the boy shouldn’t have brought in the clock because it looked like a bomb, and the family says Shapiro and Hanson made inaccurate, biased and sensationalized statements that insinuated they may have committed a crime, perpetrated a hoax and had ties to terrorist groups.
The Mohameds argued in September their claims against Shapiro, Hanson and the CSPshouldn’t have been dismissed under Texas' anti-SLAPP law, saying it was never meant to protect speech that “consciously ignored actual, verifiable facts” and accused the family of criminal and deceitful conduct. They argued they had demonstrated a meritorious claim that should have survived early dismissal.
Shapiro said in a brief filed Monday the law was “designed to quickly dismiss pernicious lawsuits” aimed at stifling free speech and that people wishing to debate public issues should not be silenced for fear of a potentially crippling legal judgment or legal fees. Shapiro argued the Mohameds had actively sought the media spotlight and fueled the public controversy, pushing themselves into the limelight and becoming limited-purpose public figures who must establish actual malice for their libel claims to survive.
Shapiro also argued his statements had been nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole.
Hanson and the CSP said in a response brief filed Monday the Mohameds were required to show the statements were made with actual malice, arguing Ahmed Mohamed and his father were at least limited-purpose public figures involved in a matter of public concern. They said the Mohameds failed to show Hanson’s statements are libelous as a matter of law or that he spoke with actual malice.
Mohamed is represented by Susan Hutchison and Christopher Stoy of Hutchison & Stoy PLLC and Thad Spalding and Morgan McPheeters of Kelly Durham & Pittard LLP.
TheBlaze and Beck are represented by Casey Moore and Michael Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Hanson and the Center for Security Policy are represented by David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center and Pete Rowe of Law Office of Pete Rowe PC.
Shapiro is represented by Chris Gober of The Gober Group PLLC and Kurt Schlichter of Schlichter & Shonack LLP.
The case is Mohamed v. TheBlaze Inc. et al., case number 05-17-00278-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifth District.
--Editing by Marygrace Murphy.
The Fifth Court of Appeals agreed Tuesday to partially dismiss an appeal in which Ahmed Mohamed and his father, Mohamed Mohamed, sought to revive claims a handful of pundits had made defamatory comments about the teen, in light of the settlement reached with Beck and TheBlaze. Still pending is the Mohameds’ appeal of the dismissal of their claims against commentators Jim Hanson of the Center for Security Policy and Ben Shapiro.
A Dallas trial judge in January and February dismissed the Mohameds’ claims against Beck, Hanson and Shapiro under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a free speech law intended to provide for early dismissal of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. The Mohameds were ordered to pay a total of more than $270,000 in attorneys’ fees to the defendants.
Michael Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig LLP, an attorney for Beck and TheBlaze, declined to comment Wednesday, saying the terms of the settlement are confidential.
Lawyers for the Mohameds did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the settlement or the pending appeals. Lawyers for Shapiro and Hanson did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the pending appeals.
Ahmed Mohamed was a 14-year-old high school student in Irving, Texas, when he brought a homemade alarm clock to school. One of his teachers apparently thought the device was a bomb, and Mohamed was arrested and suspended from school, then cast into a media spotlight as news of his arrest spread.
Much of the commentary following news of his arrest was supportive of Mohamed — even then-President Barack Obama weighed in to praise his love of science. But other commentators said the boy shouldn’t have brought in the clock because it looked like a bomb, and the family says Shapiro and Hanson made inaccurate, biased and sensationalized statements that insinuated they may have committed a crime, perpetrated a hoax and had ties to terrorist groups.
The Mohameds argued in September their claims against Shapiro, Hanson and the CSPshouldn’t have been dismissed under Texas' anti-SLAPP law, saying it was never meant to protect speech that “consciously ignored actual, verifiable facts” and accused the family of criminal and deceitful conduct. They argued they had demonstrated a meritorious claim that should have survived early dismissal.
Shapiro said in a brief filed Monday the law was “designed to quickly dismiss pernicious lawsuits” aimed at stifling free speech and that people wishing to debate public issues should not be silenced for fear of a potentially crippling legal judgment or legal fees. Shapiro argued the Mohameds had actively sought the media spotlight and fueled the public controversy, pushing themselves into the limelight and becoming limited-purpose public figures who must establish actual malice for their libel claims to survive.
Shapiro also argued his statements had been nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole.
Hanson and the CSP said in a response brief filed Monday the Mohameds were required to show the statements were made with actual malice, arguing Ahmed Mohamed and his father were at least limited-purpose public figures involved in a matter of public concern. They said the Mohameds failed to show Hanson’s statements are libelous as a matter of law or that he spoke with actual malice.
Mohamed is represented by Susan Hutchison and Christopher Stoy of Hutchison & Stoy PLLC and Thad Spalding and Morgan McPheeters of Kelly Durham & Pittard LLP.
TheBlaze and Beck are represented by Casey Moore and Michael Grygiel of Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Hanson and the Center for Security Policy are represented by David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center and Pete Rowe of Law Office of Pete Rowe PC.
Shapiro is represented by Chris Gober of The Gober Group PLLC and Kurt Schlichter of Schlichter & Shonack LLP.
The case is Mohamed v. TheBlaze Inc. et al., case number 05-17-00278-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fifth District.
--Editing by Marygrace Murphy.
