Judge dismisses London Mayor Weddle’s defamation suit over Facebook posts
A judge sided against London Mayor Randall Weddle this week in his suit against a citizen making negative comments about him on Facebook.
Weddle, a logistics entrepreneur who garnered controversy for his donations to the Kentucky Democratic Party last year, filed a defamation lawsuit in February against citizen Sherri Rudder-Smith. He claimed that Rudder-Smith’s recent posts to the social media site Facebook caused “injury to his reputation, mental anguish, (and) humiliation.”
Laurel Circuit Judge Gregory Lay dismissed Weddle’s case on Tuesday, stating that Rudder-Smith’s words did not rise to the level of defamation. Lay also used a recently passed law protecting Kentuckians from so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation as further reasoning for dismissal.
Rudder-Smith had claimed in Facebook posts that Weddle was conspiring against London citizens by using city agents to “chalk” the tires of patrons frequenting downtown restaurants for the purpose of pulling over drivers under the influence of alcohol at sporting and social events. In the comments section of such a post, she used the words “communists” and “mafia” to describe Weddle.
Weddle took great issue with this, so much so that he filed the lawsuit in the first place, but Lay wrote that there was not enough evidence that her words constituted “actual malice,” and that such speech — particularly when it comes to addressing public figures such as a mayor — is protected political speech under the First Amendment.
Rudder-Smith’s legal team explicitly challenged the lawsuit by citing the state’s anti-SLAPP law, also known as UPEPA, which was enacted in 2022. That contributed to Lay’s relatively quick dismissal, the judge wrote.
“Rhetorical hyperbole refers to exaggerated statements or colorful language that, when viewed in context, are not meant to be taken literally as assertions of fact. Instead, they are expressions of opinion or criticism that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment,” Lay wrote.
“In Rudder-Smith’s case, her characterization of Weddle as having ‘cronies’ and being a ‘communist’ was made in the context of social media posts discussing local politics and alleged policies, which are matters of public concern,” Lay continued.
“Given the context of her statements, the political nature of the criticism, and the protections afforded by the First Amendment and Kentucky’s UPEPA statute, these comments are constitutionally protected expressions of opinion and criticism.”
Weddle has been a massive donor to Democratic causes in recent years.
The mayor stirred controversy when it was discovered he contributed more than $200,000 in other people’s names to Gov. Andy Beshear’s successful 2023 reelection bid and the Kentucky Democratic Party. Afterward, he legally gave a group supporting Beshear’s gubernatorial run $550,000.
Lay’s ruling is not considered final because Rudder-Smith is still seeking attorney’s fees. When that issue is finalized, the ruling will be appealable.
A spokesperson for Weddle has not commented on the case or its future. Weddle’s attorney also did not comment on the matter.
Weddle filed a similar lawsuit around the same time and in the same court against a different individual who posted about him on Facebook. A judge has yet to rule on that case.
That lawsuit targets posts claiming that Weddle was using to the mayor’s office to “line his pockets,” directing government employees to fill up their vehicles at a certain gas station where Weddle is a “silent partner,” claims that Weddle strongly disputes.
This story was originally published July 11, 2024 at 9:34 AM.
