Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

Bill Muehlenberg should be sued for libel

Bill Muehlenberg thinks he's on a mission from god, and he believes that entitles him to do and say anything regardless of the consequences, or who he may hurt.

We're all for freedom of speech, and allowing Muehlenberg free reign with his outrageous homophobic bigotry, but when he sets about savaging real people, and damaging their reputations, we really do need to speak out.

In "It's all about me: Another Christian Celeb bites the dust", Muehlenberg attacks Trey Pearson, a Christian rocker who has recently come out as gay. Muehlenberg does so by framing his piece with what he says is a statement from Trey Pearson:
I am never going to be able to change how I am, and no matter how healthy our relationship becomes, it’s never going to change what I know deep down: that I am attracted to children…. (Bill Muehlenberg quoting Trey Pearson)
Although Muehlenberg then admits that Pearson never said anything of the sort, he deliberately misquotes Pearson to draw a moral equivalence between being gay and being a paedophile: that's being in a loving and consensual same-sex relationship, and raping children.

And Muehleberg's outrageous false analogy is so successful that JT Pearse then comments:
So abominably tragic. It may be paedophilia for him next, anyway. 
Clearly this person believes that Pearson is only one step away from raping kids.

It has to be said that this kind of low libel is illegal, and it's astonishing that Trey Pearson and his legal team aren't taking action to sue Muehlenberg. This kind of scurrilous attack is not just beyond decency and beyond social acceptability, it's also beyond the boundaries of the law. It's time Muehlenberg was brought to justice for his many attacks on innocent people.


  1. Are we sure Muehlenberg wasn't really referencing clergy? I know that would be bordering on honest so would be unexpected.

  2. A defamation case would be difficult, namely because it would nee to be brought by Trey Pearson himself. He's in the US and probably unaware this bigot exists so I don't think it'll happen.

    A better option would be to purse Cultrewatch via section 124A of Anti-Discrimination Act (Qld) or it's equivalent provision in NSW, the ACT or Tasmania. This makes vilification of a person or group of persons on the basis of their sexuality unlawful and so would be easier to meet the elements of. There is already precedent in both Qld and NSW that says equating homosexuality with child sex abuse breaches the provision (see Burns v Sunol).

    The risk with this sort of litigation however, is the tendency for the defendant to turn themselves into public martyrs and claim they've had their freedoms violated. And unfortunately the right wing Murdoch Press in Australia will aide in this representation as they did in the "Don't mess with Marriage" incident in Tasmania.