Bradlee Dean | Rachel Maddow | Religion | Video

Rachel Maddow Strikes Back Against Silly Homophobe's Lawsuit


Andy wrote some months ago about the bizarre lawsuit filed against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC by rocker, activist, Christian, bigot, and noted crazyperson Bradlee Dean. Maddow, Dean claimed, misrepresented some remarks he'd delivered on a radio program. (Watch the original Maddow segment AFTER THE JUMP.)

Here's how Dean's edited remarks appeared on Maddow's show:

Muslims are calling for the execution for homosexuals in America. ... They themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo Christian God. They seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do. Because these people are livid about enforcing their laws, they know homosexuality is an abomination. ... If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that's what you're seeing in America today.

Here's what Dean actually said:

Muslims are calling for the execution for homosexuals in America, this was just released yesterday and it shows you that they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible, the Judeo Christian God. They seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do. Because these people are livid about enforcing their laws, they know homosexuality is an abomination. And I continually reach out to the homosexual communities on this radio show, and I warn them, which ones love? Here you have Obama condemning it behind the backs of the homosexuals but to their faces he's promoting it. I say this to my gay friends out there the ones that continuously nitpick everything I say. Hollywood is promoting immorality and the God of the Heavens in Jesus names is warning you to flee from the wrath to come, yet you have Muslims calling for your execution. If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that's what you're seeing in America today. Read Leviticus 26 America.

(FYI: Dean has always asserted that he's not actually advocating the literal execution of actual gays -- a disclaimer which Maddow happily included in her segment.)

You'll note that the two quotes are identical in essence, though not in text. Nevertheless, Dean's suing MSNBC for $50 million. (He claims that the lawsuit's about principles, not cash.) Maddow and co. are now firing back: According to The Hollywood Reporter, they've hit Dean with an anti-SLAPP claim which could force him to pay their legal fees. 

From the filing:

1. "One, the broadcasts truthfully reported on Dean’s May 15th statements. Those broadcasts re-played original audio of Dean speaking on the May 15th radio show. Dean does not – and cannot – allege that he did not make those controversial statements. The fact that NBCUniversal broadcast the essence but not the entirety of what Dean said during that radio show, as he now protests, does not change this analysis. Dean bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his words, however much he may try to distance himself from the backlash.

2. "Two, the commentary or rebuke Maddow offered about Dean’s statements was classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole, and thus, cannot be actionable as a matter of law. As Dean is entitled to his opinions, however objectionable, so too is Maddow entitled to hers."

3. "Three, the fair comment privilege protects Maddow’s commentary. The broadcasts featured Dean’s actual statements and clearly indicated the source of those statements. Viewers were free to make up their own minds as to whether they agreed with Maddow’s remarks."



Feed This post's comment feed


  1. No H8, what I don't like are complete idiots who go around saying they hope Obama loses and they don't care who becomes president. Are you really this dumb???? So you don't care DADT would be reinstated, you don't care sodomy would become illegal again, you don't care gay marriage would never become a reality, you don't care EDNA wouldn't happen.

    You're an idiot. Why don't you try living in reality? Maybe you're just too dense, for example, to realize if Obama had been for gay marriage in 08 then he wouldn't have been elected.

    You can have your free speech all you want but the words of a moron do come at some price.

    Posted by: Michael | Apr 21, 2012 7:06:06 PM

  2. H8TSTRBS:

    I'm just pointing out that there is a post that specifically addresses your concerns with respect to Obama and his LGBT policies. Of course, you know that, don't you?

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Apr 21, 2012 7:15:58 PM

  3. Btw, back to the actual topic, the original text of the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. For example, the term translated to "as with" in those two Leveticus passages means 'bed' every other time its used in Leveticus. When Paul was directly referring to that passage when writing the Corinthians clobber passage he specifically states "male bed".

    Sorry but its beyond obvious "as with" is an international mistranslation. But, you know, it would be impossible to condemn gay people if the text still read tho shall not lay with a man on a woman's bed. Leveticus 15 gives a long list of bed issues.

    Posted by: Michael | Apr 21, 2012 7:17:17 PM

  4. @Michael
    Oooooh, not only am I a moron, but my words come at a price. I feel so threatened, I just wet myself. I better go run away now that I've been nailed as a moron and stop contributing because you sure put me in my place!

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 7:33:14 PM

  5. @Michael
    I am not a biblical scholar, so I don't know about that. I was telling him what passage I thought was used to condemn us all the time. Thanks for the insight.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 7:35:21 PM

  6. @Michael

    I was not aware of the "mistranslation" in Leviticus, and I've read lots of commentaries (though I can't read Hebrew, only NT G). Odd that Boswell didn't know this one, perhaps it's a recent discovery or claim? Usually the argument against Leviticus is that "toevah" is not so bad as "abomination" implies.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Apr 21, 2012 7:39:00 PM

  7. H8 sorry you felt attacked, wasn't my intention

    Posted by: GeorgeM | Apr 21, 2012 7:52:06 PM

  8. @GeorgeM
    If I'm not mistaken, you have been a gentleman. I don't recall you attacking anything but my argument. I thank you for that. People who disagree with me respectfully give me hope for the community. I think I was refering to people who say to me STFU when they are too stupid to counter my arguments, or call me a troll for the same reason, or question my intelligence when I am quite sure their I.Q. is lower than mine by at least 30 points and I am assuming they are above average somewhat. Those are the attacks I speak of.
    I think you only responded to my arguments. If I am mistaken, then go to heck! But I don't think I am. Thank you for disagreeing with me so respectfully and not blaming me for a conversation I didn't start. If you look at the first page of these comments, you will see I stated a fact about what was taken out of his Dean's rant and gave and opinion why. Since then, I have been on the defense. I am not pushing this thing, everyone else is because they simply can't have me on her stating independant thought. It was only an opinion.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 8:06:25 PM

  9. If a person's ONLY concern is national marriage equality, then having Romney elected this year will delay that as a possibility for probably 30 years. The next president could put 2 or 3 justices on the Supreme Court. Romney will most certainly put right wing, anti-gay justices in place, and they serve for life. We would have to wait until they died on the bench before a spot would open up for a progressive justice.

    If you think this election doesn't matter or you are unhappy with Obama because he "hasn't done enough" or evolved enough, consider what you would get with a President Romney. A Supreme Court stacked against us for 20+ years.

    Posted by: Chadd | Apr 21, 2012 8:09:59 PM

  10. @Chad
    If I am going to have marriage equality in California either way, what do I care about national marriage equality? I mean this seriously, maybe there is a reason I don't know of that I should care about National marraige equality rather than just statewide in California. But If I am going to get my marriage equality, why shouldn't I feel the rest of the community can go to h*ll? They are a bunch of intolerant people who call me names becauase I am politically incorrect. If it doesn't affect me personally, I would rather there were no national marriage equality because that would be good for gay people who hate me just because I disagree with them.
    In the last month since I have been visiting I have come to not hate straights so very much and I have come to hate my own community very much. It is sad gays are so intolerant. You'd think we'd know better, but we don't.
    Since we are so cruel to our own, maybe we don't deserve equality. Maybe we aren't fully human. I know some gays here who act like unthinking animals.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 8:21:35 PM

  11. @AcronymJim
    If you are saying there is a post I failed to respond to, point it out, I have been fielding a lot of comments pointed at me, so I may have missed one. Which page is it on and who made it? Or are you sure I haven't responded to it? Maybe you just felt my response was insufficient. Or perhaps the post was made by somebody calling me names, in which cas I would have addressed the name calling and not their argument which is lost on me as soon as you call me names? Perhaps someone made a real good post, and I just ignored it because the were using an ad hominem.
    point it out to me and I will either address it or point out the ad hominem that causes me to dismiss everything in the post.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 8:38:08 PM

  12. H8STR8S, I can certainly understand an emotional, visceral dislike of someone that may at times not always be logical. You may be right that Obama stated opposition to same sex marriage may have been a factor in swaying some people to vote for Prop 8. (Obama actually came out AGAINST Prop 8. Unfortunately, the anti-Prop 8 organizers failed to make much use of that, while Prop 8 supporters did targeted campaigns to swing voters to make them believe Obama supported it. But even so, though Obama opposed Prop 8, they confusion that Prop 8 supporters created wouldn't have been possible if he was a clear supporter of same sex marriage.)

    But I do think that who the next President is will make a critical difference to marriage equality in California, specifically. First, the Prop 8 case will make it to the US Supreme Court, and the vote will be close. If there's a vacancy on the Court before the case is heard, whomever is appointed may well be the swing vote over whether Prop 8 is struck down or not.

    But even if Prop 8 is struck down, there are more than a thousand federal rights that will not be conferred to same sex married couples. Already there are couples here who have a monstrous headache every year when they have to file Federal taxes as single but state taxes as married. And if one is on the other's health insurance, they're taxed for that (straight married couples are not).

    DOMA has to be repealed or overturned. If Congress passes a repeal, Obama has pledged to support it; Romney has pledged a veto. Romney wants a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage; Obama opposes that. Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA, which makes it more likely that the courts will strike it down. Romney has pledged to resume defending it. And Obama appointees to the Supreme Court will be much more likely to overturn DOMA than Romney appointees.

    I understand your frustration, but in this case I don't think it's supported by the facts.

    Posted by: Kevin_BGFH | Apr 21, 2012 8:58:07 PM

  13. H8Str8 ,

    You can hate Obama as much as you need to, but if you choose to not to vote for Obama or not to vote at all for this up coming presidential election , then you are not doing yourself or your marriage any favor.
    You can hate all the straight president until there is a gay one, but for the time being, you need to help yourself and other gays by voting for the least anti-gay candidate. Vote for the more anti-gay candidate would mean the gays would be in worst situation than they are now.

    I made the assumption that you would vote for Obama, which i could have been wrong since I have not read any of your comment indicating whether you would voting for him or not.

    Posted by: Malaysian Ho | Apr 21, 2012 9:52:17 PM

  14. @kevinvt

    There's a couple of good bible websites that give you the original word and where else its used. When I was on one a few years ago I noticed the Hebrew word translated to 'as with' appeared in Leveticus many times but meant 'bed' every other time it was used. It was a little odd one word could have two vastly different meanings and conveniently only meant as with in the passages used against homosexuals. However... Paul was directly referring to that Leveticus passage when writing the Corinthians clobber passage and he states "soft" and "male bed".

    There were three types of beds when Leveticus was written. The male bed, the female bed and the marriage bed. My personal theory is, like Paul, Leveticus is actually saying "male bed" and the correct translation is "a man shall not lay with a woman on a male bed" however the websites that discuss this state "a man shall not lay with another male on a woman's bed.". Toevah is used to describe ritual impurities and bed issues are definitely of that type.

    Btw, I have been studying and researching this on my own since the Catholic church tried convincing me God sends gay people to hell, ie decades...

    Posted by: Michael | Apr 21, 2012 9:54:33 PM

  15. @Kevin_BGFH
    Thank you very much for disagreeing with me respectfully. You are a gentleman.
    I love your argument. I have two sticking point questions and you may have me convinced to vote for the s.o.b.:
    I would have to know the Federal rights that might affect me. I know you can't recite them here, so I would like to tell you what won't affect me and you can tell me what Federal Rights you think I may not be thinking of.
    I don't care about taxes. Not an issue. Don't care about Job security, housing, Marriage outside of California, DADT, Federal hate crimes legislation, I can't think of much else off the top of my head. What gay Federal rights should I care about?
    Why does DOMA have to be overturned if I have equal marriage rights in California?
    Lastly, this is not a sticking point, but you don't think there will be a vacancy in the court before prop. 8 goes to it if it does, do you? I don't believe anyone has declared for retirement. Am I wrong there?

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 10:03:04 PM

  16. H8, you are a waste of time.

    And how exactly should I counter your "I hope Obama loses, I don't care who becomes president"? Only a complete and utter moron would make such a statement. Obama has done more for gay rights then anyone else.

    And let me state this again... Your intellectual capability is a joke if you can't comprehend Obama supporting gay marriage in 08 would have cost him the election just like him coming out with an executive order now regarding job discrimination would cost him the next. It is baffling there are some of us in the LGBT community who can't see the woods through the trees and would rather chop the tree down even if its a given its going to fall and crush them.

    You are a disgrace to the gay community wanting a man, who has done more for gay rights than any other president, to lose the election and instead want a man to win who would likely make it illegal for any of us to be gay.

    Posted by: Michael | Apr 21, 2012 10:03:05 PM

  17. Omg H8, maybe you should care about those other issues because there are other gays and lesbians out there besides yourself.

    Posted by: Michael | Apr 21, 2012 10:07:24 PM

  18. Bradlee Dean is the north end of a southbound horse. Both he and his imaginary god can perform osculation on my posterior.

    Posted by: Dearcomrade | Apr 21, 2012 10:48:22 PM

  19. @Michael
    I don't care about those issues because there are gay people out there like you. I hate the gay community because of gay people like yourself. You should consider that you are attacking another member of the community and thereby tearing it apart. When I first visited about a month ago, I was fully supportive of the rest of the community. Now I just hate the community because of mean spirited people who can't respect those they don't agree with.
    I can't respect you any more than you respect me, and I can't listen to your arguments because you insult me while trying to argue. You get no where that way.
    Can't you see that you are more hatefilled than myself because you can't stop yourself attacking other gay people simply for disagreeing with you?

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 11:06:40 PM

  20. @Michael
    You are not a waste of time. You are a human being like any other who has a right to your opinion. I wish I didn't fill you with enough hate to say to another person they are a waste of time. I'm sorry I did that to you.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 11:08:22 PM

  21. @Michael
    I have been called a troll and I don't understand why. But my understanding of a troll is they say things for an emotional reaction, just for the sake of the reaction itsef. When you talk to me in an insulting manner, you are not trying to make an argument that can reach me, are you? Because you know I won't listen if you are insulting me. You are not trying to communicate with me or change my mind. It does seem to me people say mean things to each other to get an emotional reaction from eachother. So if you are not trying to get the emotional reaction out of me just for the sake of the reaction, what are you doing? And if that is what you are doing, how do you differ from a troll? I'm not callling you one, I am asking how you differ when you do that.
    Answer me this, if you can.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 11:27:10 PM

  22. H8STR8S - seriously, dude, you need to step away from the computer. You are perseverating, obsessing. Focusing TOO much attention.

    Posted by: TJ | Apr 21, 2012 11:28:40 PM

  23. @TJ: Classic trolling. Stop feeding. I did.

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Apr 21, 2012 11:51:12 PM

  24. @TJ
    Thank you for the advice.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 11:53:45 PM

  25. @AcronymJim
    Of course, you are too dense to argue with me so I am a troll.
    Makes perfect sense.

    Posted by: H8Str8s | Apr 21, 2012 11:54:54 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Lesbian Den Mother Jennifer Tyrell Needn't Have Been Dismissed By Boy Scouts« «