In a decision highlighting the tenets of free speech and journalistic integrity, a U.S. District Judge in Philadelphia dismissed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday filed by Pennsylvania Judge Paula Patrick against media publication, The Daily Beast. The contentious lawsuit accused The Daily Beast of defaming Judge Patrick via an October 2021 headline that suggested a link between her and the conspiracy group QAnon.
Presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson ruled that Patrick had failed to prove “actual malice,” a critical legal requirement in defamation cases. This term refers to the act of knowingly publishing false information or exhibiting reckless disregard for the truth. In this context, it would mean that The Daily Beast knowingly presented false information in their article about Patrick.
The article, which remains accessible online, criticized a decision Patrick made regarding a Christopher Columbus statue in Philadelphia. The headline-grabbing ruling mandated that the controversial statue should stay visible, which subsequently thrust Patrick into the public eye.
Judge Wolson, dismissing Patrick’s lawsuit, highlighted the inherent need for resilience in a judge’s role. He wrote, “Being a judge requires a thick skin and a willingness to make decisions in the face of criticism, even unfair criticism, and to remember that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”
Patrick, who has consistently denied any association with QAnon, saw this decision as a defeat. Her attorney voiced plans to appeal the court’s order, arguing that Judge Wolson overstepped by attempting to assess the degree of recklessness involved in the article prematurely.
Elected in 2003 to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Patrick, a Republican, has presided over a broad range of cases including those involving juvenile crime and parental rights. However, she lost her bid for a position on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the 2021 primary.
As part of her campaign, Patrick reportedly gave an interview with a QAnon supporter, a fact noted in the Daily Beast article. The same piece also claimed that Patrick had been slated to speak at a QAnon-affiliated conference, a claim she vehemently denies in her lawsuit. She insists that she neither attended nor spoke at the alleged event.
Patrick’s lawsuit categorically branded The Daily Beast’s portrayal of her as “QAnon-linked” as a “knowingly false and outrageous assertion.”
In defense of The Daily Beast, lawyers from the law firm Ballard Spahr maintained that the article took pains to report Patrick’s denial of any association with QAnon. Representatives from The Daily Beast and Ballard Spahr have yet to comment on the court’s decision.
The dismissal of the lawsuit underlines the complexities and standards involved in defamation law, particularly concerning public figures and freedom of press rights.
