|
4080 Statements that plaintiffs were engaged in an "inappropriate" relationship with a young girl, were "delusional," needed "more than spiritual counseling," were a "deviant couple," were like "errant priests," and that parents should rethink their interactions with them were expressions of opinion that could not result in defamation liability; communications between church members regarding church matters are protected by qualified privilege unless they are made with malice; statements about an allegedly inappropriate relationship between youth leaders and a young girl in their program were sufficiently related to a matter of public interest to make an action arising from them subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.CitationTERRY v DAVIS COMMUNITY CHURCH (Youth Leaders) 131 CA4 1534 [See: CCP 425.16; CivC 47; Franklin v Dynamic 116 CA4 375, T/AT 4/04; Campanelli v Regents 44 CA4 572, T/AT 5/96]
|
|
