From Friday’s opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Fredin v. Klasfeld (the opinion doesn’t name the participating judges):
Brock Fredin, a social media commentator, appeals the dismissal of his diversity action alleging that a journalist … defamed him by reporting on his well-documented history of harassing women and comparing that conduct to his recent criticism of a judicial law clerk in a high-profile legal proceeding….
Fredin … operates an X (formerly known as Twitter) account in which he criticized Allison Greenfield, the law clerk of the state-court judge presiding over a civil fraud case brought by the State of New York against President Donald Trump and others. Fredin accused Greenfield of violating ethics rules, being politically biased against President Trump, and leaking inside information about the trial to reporters. Fredin rose to prominence after President Trump reposted Fredin’s criticism on social media and himself criticized Greenfield.
Soon thereafter, a reporter named Adam Klasfeld, who was covering the fraud case, wrote an article in an online publication called The Messenger that exposed Fredin’s history of harassing women—all well-documented through court records of restraining orders and criminal charges against Fredin. Klasfeld reported that Fredin had harassed multiple women by creating websites in their names, emailing their employers and colleagues with accusations of criminal conduct, and filing complaints with their professional organizations.
We will later examine the specific statements, but for now it suffices to say that Klasfeld made clear he was relying on court records. Klasfeld, for instance, repeatedly qualified the accusations against Fredin with phrases like “a court found,” “court records show,” and “[the judge] wrote.” Klasfeld compared Fredin’s past harassment of these women to his treatment of Greenfield. According to Klasfeld, Fredin filed a bar complaint against Greenfield, reported her to various state agencies and disciplinary committees, and posted on his social media a website (with a URL using Greenfield’s name) inviting viewers to criticize her and call for her disbarment….
Fredin sued Klasfeld for (among other things) defamation, but the court held that “[t]he district court did not err by concluding that the reporting was substantially
true”:
As best we can tell, [Fredin] faults Klasfeld for disseminating false accusations by his victims. But that argument misrepresents the nature of Klasfeld’s article. Klasfeld did not report that he had spoken with the women and repeated their accusations but rather that he was relaying what courts have said about Fredin’s interactions with women. By limiting his reporting in this way, Klasfeld inoculated himself from liability. Whether Fredin’s accusers are lying—a view rejected by every court to have considered the issue—is beside the point. What matters is whether Klasfeld’s characterization of the court documents is substantially true.
The district court did not err by concluding that the reporting was substantially true. A side-by-side comparison of Klasfeld’s reporting and the relevant court documents makes this clear:
Klasfeld reported that Fredin “has been hit with 50-year restraining orders barring him from contacting three women.” According to a federal district court in Minnesota, three women “have been awarded 50-year harassment restraining orders” against Fredin. Fredin v. Middlecamp, No. 17-CV-03058 (SRN/HB), 2020 WL 6867424, at (D. Minn. Nov. 23, 2020) (Fredin I), aff’d, 855 F. App’x 314 (8th Cir. 2021). Klasfeld reported that Fredin “has been criminally convicted multiple times for violating two of those orders.” Another order from that court shows Fredin has twice been convicted of violating those orders. Fredin v. Middlecamp, 500 F. Supp. 3d 752, 765, 767 (D. Minn. 2020) (Fredin II), aff’d, 855 F. App’x 314 (8th Cir. 2021). Klasfeld reported that Fredin “is currently under criminal investigation for more suspected restraining order violations and possible stalking.” Wisconsin court records show that Fredin was under investigation for stalking at the time of Klasfeld’s article and has since been convicted. See Wisconsin v. Fredin, No. 2024CF000209 (St. Croix County). Klasfeld reported that Fredin “has attacked the targeted women in their professional circles, created harassing websites about them, and filed formal complaints against them, according to court filings.” The federal district court in Minnesota recounts that Fredin has harassed his victims by contacting their colleagues, schools, and professional organizations with accusations of “criminal conduct,” “solicit[ing] others to file complaints” against them, and creating websites revealing personal information like home addresses. Fredin II, 500 F. Supp. 3d at 762–67. This behavior warranted restraining orders. Id. Klasfeld reported that Fredin has filed “retaliatory lawsuits” against his victims. That same court concluded that Fredin “has used litigation in a bad-faith effort to circumvent the 50-year [harassment restraining orders] issued against him” and noted that state courts have agreed. Fredin I, 2020 WL 6867424, at *10. Klasfeld reported that Fredin has “openly threatened other courtroom clerks whose judges ruled in favor of one of his victims. ‘Remember, each clerk is going to get reported to the Professional Responsibility Board and websites are going up exposing you for your failure to protect,’ Fredin wrote in an appellate brief from September 2020.” That same court used nearly the same language: “Fredin has expressly threatened to post websites about court staff and file ethics complaints in retaliation for unfavorable rulings[:] … ‘Remember, each clerk is going to get reported to the Professional Responsibility Board and websites are going up exposing you for your failure to protect.'” Id. at *3. As this comparison shows, Klasfeld’s reporting was not defamatory….
The court also wrote:
Fredin also generally challenges the district court’s conclusion that Klasfeld was
expressing an opinion when Klasfeld compared Fredin’s past harassment to Fredin’s criticism of Greenfield. Fredin highlights Klasfeld’s references that his criticism “echoes” and “mirror[s]” his “pattern” of “harassing” and “threatening” other women. In Fredin’s view, Klasfeld’s references conjured notions of criminal harassment, which the district court should have viewed as an actionable statement of fact….As the [district] court noted, Fredin does not dispute the factual basis for Klasfeld’s reporting. Fredin filed a complaint against Greenfield with four disciplinary organizations and mailed the complaint to her judge. He also posted on his social media a website that used Greenfield’s name as the URL, branded her a “Democratic Operative and Hack,” shared her photo, and called for her to be disbarred. Because Fredin’s defamation claim rests on whether Klasfeld came to the correct opinion from disclosed, truthful facts, the claim fails as a matter of law.
The court also rejected other claims Fredin made. Long-time readers of the blog may recall Fredin from my 2018 post Man Forbidden from Identifying Twitter Shaming Activist, Court Order Seems to Say.
The docket also notes:
Our review of Fredin’s opening and reply briefs show that Fredin has cited cases, and provided quotes from those cases, that are misleading and even nonexistent…. We issue this order to give Fredin an opportunity to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and to obtain more information from Fredin about his use of generative artificial intelligence in preparing his briefs. Fredin shall respond on or before July 10, 2026, and explain whether any form of generative-artificial intelligence (AI) assistance was used in preparing his Fredin briefs. Fredin shall also provide any additional explanation about his inclusion of inaccurate citations and quoted language that does not appear in cited decisions.
Brian C. Spahn (Godfrey & Kahn S.C.) represents Klasfeld.
