A US judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed against TV channel Lifetime by a former personal assistant to R Kelly who claimed she was defamed in the final series of the broadcaster’s ‘Surviving R Kelly’ documentary series.
The judge ruled that Diana Copeland, who worked for Kelly from 2006 and 2008, and again in 2017 and 2018, became a public figure when she appeared on ‘Good Morning America’ in 2021 to discuss her time working for the musician. Which is crucial because, under US law, as a public figure, Copeland must show that Lifetime acted with ‘actual malice’ when it aired allegedly defamatory statements about her in its programme. Which she has failed to do.
Judge Stephanos Bibas writes in his judgement that “fame has many costs”, including one that begins with the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It, he explains, “shields publishers from lawsuits when they report inaccurately about public figures involved in public controversies, as long as they do so without ‘actual malice’”. Copeland’s lawsuit over ‘Surviving R Kelly’ “begins and ends with that First Amendment shield”, he adds.
It was the first series of ‘Surviving R Kelly’ in 2019 that resulted in new criminal charges being filed against the musician, who had been accused of sexually abusing girls and women for decades.
He subsequently went on trial twice, in both New York and Chicago, being convicted in both cases. In the New York proceedings he was convicted in September 2021 of running a criminal enterprise through which he exploited his fame and music career to access and abuse numerous women.
When Lifetime decided to make two subsequent series of ‘Surviving R Kelly’ it actually invited Copeland to participate, but she declined. However, she did agree to do an interview on CBS’s ‘Good Morning America’.
During that interview she admitted to having made travel arrangements for Kelly’s many girlfriends while working as his PA, and to having witnessed his controlling behaviour in relation to those women. However, she insisted she never made travel arrangements for any underage girls and never saw Kelly lock women up, as was alleged in the criminal case.
The final series of ‘Surviving R Kelly’ included a section discussing Copeland’s work for the musician. In her lawsuit, Copeland claimed that that section was defamatory because it portrayed her as Kelly’s co-conspirator, alleging that she “knew about Mr Kelly’s criminal conduct and turned a blind eye” and “was part of Mr Kelly’s criminal enterprise”.
Copeland said that this “false narrative” cast her in a “sinister and defamatory light”, leaving people “believing she is immoral, a predator, dangerous or untrustworthy”. To that end she sued Lifetime - plus Netflix, which also carried the programme - for defamation.
Because of free speech protections in the First Amendment, it is always harder for public figures to hold other parties liable for defamation under American law, as a result of that actual malice requirement.
In his ruling Bibas confirms that Copeland qualifies as a public figure because of the ‘Good Morning America’ appearance. “She thrust herself into this public controversy and became a public figure in it by
appearing on national TV”, he writes, adding that means “she must plausibly plead that defendants had so-called actual malice”.
To demonstrate actual malice, he explains, Copeland needed to show that Lifetime “knew that the statements featured in the show were false” or that they were “reckless” in failing to ascertain the truth. But she fails to do either of those things.
Copeland also sued Lifetime and Netflix for appropriating her name and likeness, but Bibas explains that broadcasters are not liable for appropriation “simply for using someone’s name and likeness and being in a for-profit business”.
For that claim to stand, Copeland would need to show that “her name and likeness were valuable and that defendants appropriated them for their value, rather than as incidental to a newsworthy topic”. Again, Copeland failed to meet that obligation.
Hence the full dismissal of her lawsuit. Although she has been given the option to re-file her litigation if she can present stronger evidence of actual malice or in relation to the appropriation claim.