Missouri pols demand immunity over Chiefs Super Bowl parade shooting posts

A man mistakenly identified as the shooter claims Missouri Senator Rick Brattin and Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins falsely identified him as a violent illegal immigrant on social media.ST. LOUIS (CN) — Two Missouri officials asked the Eighth Circuit on Thursday to grant them qualified immunity for social media posts related to a shooting at the 2024 Super Bowl parade for the Kansas City Chiefs.Missouri Senator Rick Brattin and Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who was a senator at the time of the posts, argued they are covered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal law that protects internet websites, platforms, and users from being treated as the publisher or speaker of content provided by other people.Denton Loudermill filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against the politicians due to social media posts made in the aftermath of the shooting. Hoskins and Brattin reposted a picture of Loudermill in handcuffs following the shooting on Feb. 14, 2024, that falsely named him as the shooter. Brattin and Hoskins added statements about violent illegal immigrants to their reposts, which Loudermill claims falsely painted him as such.Police released Loudermill after 10 minutes, realizing that he had nothing to do with the shooting.Loudermill, who claims he received death threats due to Hoskins’ and Brattin’s posts, died while the suits were pending, but his sister, Reba Paul, was substituted as his personal representative.A federal judge ruled in Paul’s favor in both suits, prompting the appeal.“Of course, Congress I think was trying to protect speech on the internet when it passed Section 230,” said William Rogers, a Washington University in St. Louis law student representing Loudermill’s estate. “The best indication of what Congress intends to do that is the text of statute. The text of statute doesn’t say anything about immunity, and of course, Congress doesn’t pursue any policy goal at all costs.”The crux of the decision may turn on how the appeals court determines free speech protection is applied to the posts.“Why wouldn’t the prevention of chilling of political speech be just as high of a value as protecting government officials?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, a Donald Trump appointee.Rogers said his clients are holding Brattin and Hoskins responsible for their own speech.“Mr. Hoskins’ post, I think, is sort of an even clearer example of why this isn’t just a pure repost of commentary,” Rogers said. “He says the phrase ‘violent, illegal immigrants’ multiple times again above a picture of Mr. Loudermill.”But U.S. Circuit Judge David Stras, another Trump appointee, seemed skeptical.“We are getting into some merits a little bit where you see a post making a particular factual claim, and then you’re opining about it,” Stras said. “In other words, you’re assuming the truth or the veracity of it, which is saying, ‘Hey, this is a societal problem type of thing.’ I mean, I just don’t know that I think those things are different and there may be some merit to what opposing counsel is saying on that.”Arguing on behalf of the officials, Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi III attempted to paint Brattin and Hoskins as easy targets due to their positions.“Recognizing that Section 230 immunity applies in this case does not leave appellee without legal recourse,” Capozzi said. “Appellee can and should sue the author of the underlying defamatory post, Deep Truth Intel, and not the host of people who reposted that defamation, and not appellants simply because they were state legislators who had audiences that wanted to hear what they had to say about illegal immigration.”Hoskins and Brattin are no strangers to legal controversy.Hoskins, currently Missouri’s secretary of state, is a central figure in the state’s ongoing voting map controversy, in which Brattin is a plaintiff.In recent weeks, Hoskins has also had a pair of class actions regarding his handling of the voting map and an election integrity whistleblower lawsuit filed against him in state court.U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby E. Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, rounded out the three-judge panel, which took the arguments under advisement. There is no timetable for a decision.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads