Civil and Human Rights

Defendants Asking Federal Judge to Dismiss Lawsuit Tied to Aug. 2017

A federal judge is considering arguments over a motion to dismiss the lawsuit between an eyewitness to the violence tied to the Unite the Right rally and right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and others.

Attorneys representing Jones and other defendants asked the judge Tuesday, November 13, to dismiss the lawsuit.

The suit claims plaintiff Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department official, became a target of harassment after posting a video showing the deadly car attack along 4th Street following the controversial rally held on August 12, 2017.

Gilmore witnessed the incident that left 32-year-old Heather Heyer dead, and injured dozens more. He posted a video to Twitter, and was interviewed by national media outlets.

According to the lawsuit, Jones, Infowars, and the other defendants soon started spreading conspiracy theories about Gilmore, which led to threats against the plaintiff and his family. Gilmore claims to have suffered from hate mail, death threats, hacking attempts, and in-person harassment.

“All these threats and harm that I received because of taking that video here on August 12th. I just want to ensure that the next person who finds themselves in that position, that they don’t have to suffer the same injury I suffered,” Gilmore said.

“The First Amendment does not protect the ability of these conspiracy mongerers [sic] to drag regular citizens into the public sphere, to spread lies that damage their reputation,” said Elizabeth Wydra, Gilmore’s attorney.

“We believe this is just an abuse of the First Amendment. Many of the statements are very clearly opinion. Often, opinions, you might find offensive but the First Amendment doesn’t just protect speech you agree with,” said defense attorney Aaron Walker, who represents six of the defendants, Lee Stranahan, Jim Hoft, R. Scott Creighton, Derrick Wilburn, Michelle Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC.

Gilmore says comments made by the defendants painted him as an accessory after the fact to the death of Heyer. He is seeking at least $75,000 in the lawsuit. Wydra says the point of the lawsuit is to demonstrate that words matter, especially now.

The judge is considering arguments on whether Gilmore is a public or private citizen: Defense attorneys claim Gilmore was at least a limited-public figure, because he worked in a Democratic campaign and is an activist.

In court Tuesday, attorneys focused on the hours and days immediately afterward the events of August 12th, specifically interview given to the media and what was said.

The judge is also mulling if Gilmore can properly sue all defendants in Charlottesville where he lives. The defense argues the out-of-state defendants cannot be sued in Virginia, and instead, Gilmore must go to their jurisdictions.

The suit was filed by Georgetown University Law School Civil Rights Center on behalf of Gilmore.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle