RFK Jr. sues Cape Elizabeth man over social media posts

Feb. 19—A Cape Elizabeth man is asking Maine's highest court to dismiss a libel lawsuit filed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who accuses the man of making defamatory statements in social media posts during Kennedy's recent run for president.
David Vickrey's request that the lawsuit be dismissed was denied in late January by Cumberland County Superior Court Justice Thomas McKeon. Vickrey and his attorney have since filed an appeal of that ruling with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Kennedy eventually dropped out of the presidential race and was confirmed last week as the Trump administration's secretary of Health and Human Services, an appointment that was controversial because of Kennedy's past criticisms of vaccines and his false claim that some vaccines cause autism.
Kennedy's suit accuses Vickrey of making false claims on X and "in statements to third parties and the public" that Kennedy opposes all vaccines, that he helped cause a measles outbreak in Samoa and that he wanted to cause the death of Black people.
It says Vickrey also republished falsehoods in a 2020 blog post he wrote for the progressive website Daily Kos about Kennedy's speech at a rally in Germany. Vickrey wrote that the rally was organized by right-wing extremists including a neo-Nazi group.
Kennedy said Vickrey attributed the claim to a German article, but the article had actually reported the rally was organized by a democratic movement that opposes fascism and extremism and excluded the neo-Nazi group.
"Defendant knew ... that the German article he was translating never said Mr. Kennedy joined, associated, supported or spoke on behalf of the neo-Nazi (National Democratic Party of Germany)," Kennedy's complaint says. "Despite knowing this ... defendant published the lie all over repeatedly, with more flamboyant falsehoods."
Vickrey, meanwhile, has argued that the "alleged defamatory statements almost entirely consist of his sharing of articles and videos from other content providers," including his sharing of a YouTube video about Kennedy's role in the Samoa measles outbreak on X and his sharing of a link to an article about Kennedy's anti-vaccine stances harming Black people.
In his motion to dismiss, Vickrey said the suit violates Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects people from retaliatory lawsuits that target free speech. In addition, Vickrey said the blog post and some of the posts on X fall outside of a two-year statute of limitations on defamation. Kennedy also is a public figure who failed to show any actual damages or injury from the posts, Vickrey said.
"For over one year, plaintiff, a well-known public figure from a prominent American political family, a former candidate for the United States presidency, and now a potential member of the administration of President-elect Trump, has threatened and harassed David Vickrey, a citizen of Maine who happens to share political beliefs that differ from those of the plaintiff," Vickrey's attorney wrote in the motion to dismiss the case filed in November.
Attorneys for Kennedy did not respond to emails or voicemail messages seeking an interview about the case. Brian Suslak, a New Hampshire-based attorney for Vickrey, said that Vickrey is not commenting on the case at the moment.
"We have filed an appeal of the order on the motion to dismiss and we await the Law Court's decision on the appeal," Suslak said in an email.
In a statement to The Defender, a publication of the nonprofit Children's Health Defense founded by Kennedy, Kennedy's attorney Robert Barnes called the denial of the motion to dismiss "a big win."
"The court found that repeating lies about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that have been proven false by prior lawsuits is clear evidence of actual malice toward Kennedy," Barnes said.
In the ruling against dismissal of the case, McKeon said the anti-SLAPP law is intended to apply to cases involving a government response to free speech, not the response of a candidate such as Kennedy.
Arguments rejected
McKeon said he could not say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Kennedy would not be entitled to relief, and that it wasn't immediately clear that Vickrey was simply expressing his own opinion as opposed to making defamatory statements.
McKeon also rejected Vickrey's argument that a statute of limitations would apply, saying that the republication of past statements can lead to new harms.
And he said the Communications Decency Act cited by Vickrey protects internet users but not "information content providers" who contribute to, develop or create content, either in whole or in part.
"The complaint does not suggest the tweets that reposted links to third-party sources are the sole instances of alleged defamation, but rather that defendant defamed plaintiff on multiple social media platforms and on multiple occasions," McKeon wrote.
Vickery said in court documents that this is the third time Kennedy has threatened to or has actually filed a lawsuit against him, including a 2023 defamation suit filed in New Hampshire that was dismissed because of a lack of connection between the case and the state. The judge also denied an appeal after Kennedy's lawyer filed a motion a day late.
Copy the Story Link

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

San Francisco Chronicle​

25 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court will hear case of Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were shaved by Louisiana prison guards

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the appeal of a former Louisiana prison inmate whose dreadlocks were cut off by prison guards in violation of his religious beliefs. The justices will review an appellate ruling that held that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue prison officials for money damages under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. Landor, an adherent of the Rastafari religion, even carried a copy of a ruling by the appeals court in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor hadn't cut his hair in nearly two decades when he entered Louisiana's prison system in 2020 on a five-month sentence. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term. A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show. Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall. President Donald Trump's Republican administration filed a brief supporting Landor's right to sue and urged the court to hear the case. Louisiana asked the justices to reject the appeal, even as it acknowledged Landor's mistreatment. Lawyers for the state wrote that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.' The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents. The case is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197.

Yahoo

29 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Greenpeace joins anti-Bezos protest with Venice banner complaining about billionaire tax breaks

ROME (AP) — Greenpeace on Monday joined the smattering of protests in Venice against the upcoming wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. A half-dozen protesters unfurled a giant banner early Monday in St. Mark's Square reading: 'IF YOU CAN RENT VENICE FOR YOUR WEDDING YOU CAN PAY MORE TAX.' Local police quickly folded it up and took it away. The demonstration followed other anti-Bezos initiatives last week including a banner draped from the San Giorgio bell tower, one from the lagoon city's famous Rialto Bridge and posters plastered up around town complaining about the upcoming wedding and the effects of overtourism on Venice. The 'No Space for Bezos' movement — a play on words also referring to the bride's recent space flight — has united a dozen Venetian organizations including housing advocates, anti-cruise ship campaigners and university groups. Activists argue the wedding exemplifies broader failures in municipal governance, particularly the prioritization of tourism over resident needs. Greenpeace said it teamed with the British group 'Everyone Hates Elon,' which has smashed Teslas to protest Elon Musk, for Monday's banner. Greenpeace said it wanted to draw attention to the comparitively low taxes many billionaires pay while allegedly exacerbating the climate crisis with environmentally unsustainable lifestyles. Italian and Venetian officials have strongly criticized the protests and welcomed the Bezos-Sanchez nuptials, which are scheduled for later this week. Over the weekend, as the protests continued to make headlines in Italy, a Venetian environmental research association, Corila, said Bezos' Earth Fund was supporting its work with an 'important donation.' Corila, which unites university scholars and Italy's main national research council in researching Venetian protection strategies, wouldn't say how much Bezos was donating but noted contacts began in April, well before the protests started.

The Hill

36 minutes ago

• The Hill

Supreme Court turns away Virginia's appeal in felon voting ban lawsuit

The Supreme Court turned away Virginia's appeal on Monday that sought to quash a challenge to the state's lifetime felon voting ban, allowing the lawsuit to move ahead toward trial. Two disenfranchised voters claim the ban violates the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal law that set conditions for Virginia to regain congressional representation following the Civil War. Lower courts allowed the suit to move forward, saying courts can enforce the Readmission Act and the state doesn't have 11th Amendment immunity. But Virginia's Republican-controlled attorney general's office argued to the justices that would open the 'floodgates' and mark a 'radical change in the law.' 'The Fourth Circuit's ruling that the Readmission Acts are judicially enforceable invites courts to wade into the political decisions that restored the rebel States to federal representation more than 150 years ago, calling into question Congress's continuing determination that the States have republican governments and are entitled to representation,' the state wrote in its petition. In a brief order, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. A federal district judge is set to hold a bench trial in October in the case. It was filed in 2023 by two convicted felons who are ineligible to vote under the Virginia Constitution's lifetime voting ban for felons. Tati Abu King was originally convicted of robbery in 1988 before the governor restored her voting rights. She later lost them again after being convicted of felony drug possession. Toni Heath Johnson has various felony convictions dating back to the 1980s, including forgery, credit card theft and bigamy. Her voting rights, too, were restored, but she was subsequently convicted of drug possession and child endangerment. Their suit points to the Virginia Readmission Act, which was signed in 1870 following the Civil War and allowed the state to regain congressional representation. But it was conditioned on the state never changing its constitution to disenfranchise voters except for those convicted of 'such crimes as are now felonies at common law.' The two Virginians, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and law firm Wilmer Hale, argue that exception only covers a handful of long-recognized felonies like murder, arson and rape. But they say their convictions weren't recognized at common law in 1870, so they should be able to vote. They urged the Supreme Court to turn away Virginia's appeal so the case can move forward. 'The Act's purpose was to prevent Virginia from manipulating statutory criminal law to disenfranchise Black voters—specifically, from convicting and disenfranchising newly freed Black residents based on statutory crimes that were not felonies at the time Virginia entered the Union,' their attorneys wrote.