A jury has awarded more than $1.1 million to an Idaho drag performer who accused a far-right blogger of defaming him when she falsely claimed that he exposed himself to a crowd, including children, in 2022.

A jury has awarded more than $1.1 million to an Idaho drag performer who accused a far-right blogger of defaming him when she falsely claimed that he exposed himself to a crowd, including children, during a Pride event in June 2022.

The Kootenai County District Court jury unanimously found Friday that Summer Bushnell defamed Post Falls resident Eric Posey when she posted a doctored video of his performance with a blurred spot that she claimed covered his “fully exposed genitals,” the Coeur D’Alene Press reported.

In reality the unedited video showed no indecent exposure, and prosecutors declined to file charges.

“The judicial system did what needed to be done,” Posey said after the verdict.

  • @Buffalox
    71•6 months ago

    jurors asked the court if they could direct Bushnell to take down her posts about Posey and publicly apologize to him. First District Judge Ross Pittman, who presided over the trial, indicated they could not do so.

    What? Why?
    I would think that was a given!!!

    • @JonsJavaM
      46•6 months ago

      Compelling speech is a violation of the first amendment.

      Yeah, I wish they could force it, but they can’t. They might be able to come to an agreement between both parties that if the defendant did XYZ, the plaintiff would reduce damages by X amount.

      I don’t see that happening, though.

      • @Buffalox
        45•6 months ago

        But it’s libel, usually if you are judged guilty of libel, it follows it must be taken down. Otherwise she can be sued again, because it’s still libel.

        • @hoshikarakitaridia
          27•6 months ago

          I was gonna say you might not have to sue again for taking down the post, you could just ask in judgement phase that you get x amount of money for every day the post was and is up since it was created. Should do the trick.

          IANAL tho.

        • @Ejh3kEnglish
          -21•6 months ago

          Not libel.

          • Stern
            15•6 months ago

            How is it not libel when theres a court verdict confirming it is in fact libel?

            • @Ejh3kEnglish
              -13•6 months ago

              Also, at no point in that article does it say libel.

            • @Ejh3kEnglish
              -13•6 months ago

              Libel - letter Slander - spoken Defamation - something else.

              Libel needs to be written and published. Slander needs to be said and broadcast. And depending on who it’s against, there are different levels of evidence needed. Like if you are a public figure, the person doing it needs to be doing it with the expressed purpose of injuring you name/actual malice.

      • @LifeInMultipleChoice
        10•6 months ago

        So could they not just push it to state that every additional view that it gets on any platform will require $50,000 of further defamation payments. Thereby making it a much wiser decision to not defame the people?

    • @KillerTofu
      4•6 months ago

      Compelling an inauthentic apology?

      • @Buffalox
        12•6 months ago

        It’s all about the symbolism of being forced by court to apologize. It’s a very strong thing for the victim to have as a defense against further slander and libel.