Jurors Reach a Verdict in Bubba the Love Sponge Trial

Jurors Reach a Verdict in Bubba the Love Sponge Trial

Last week we blogged about a surprising event that caused a delay in the Bubba the Love Sponge trial. Although attorney Charles Phillip Campbell will have to deal with his public driving under the influence charge in the coming months, the court was able to move past this embarrassing incident and finally render a verdict in the defamation trial between the two local radio personalities.

Three hours was all it took for Tampa jurors to find Bubba the Love Sponge Clem not guilty of any of the civil defamation charges Todd “MJ Kelli” Schnitt accused him of making on the radio. To sum up the two-week trial in a couple sentences…Schnitt claimed Bubba the Love Sponge Bob Clem made defamatory statements about him and his wife that led to public threats, among other things. In his defense, the disc jockey simply responded that he was exercising his right to free speech. The Tampa Bay Times reports that the victorious Bubba the Love Sponge Clem plans to, “continue his broadcastings in his normal style, no more, no less.” Clem also plans to have a very public “funeral” for his courtroom and air wave opponent that will include “an effigy of MJ hanging and a casket.”

The judge in the case had previously dismissed five of the charges against Bubba the Love Sponge Clem earlier in the week. The Tampa Bay Times quotes an excerpt from the closing statements made by Clem’s attorney, “This is a case about the First Amendment, protected speech and the overwhelming evidence, when taken in context, is that every single bullet point is protected opinion, hyperbole, satire or simple name-calling. In other words, protected speech, speech that’s protected by the First Amendment of the United States. “

Generally speaking, in order to prevail on a defamation charge when dealing with public figures, the plaintiff would have to show the following elements:

1. Someone made a statement: In this case, Clem made statements about Schnitt and his wife on a regular basis
2. That statement was published: The statements were made on the radio, which satisfies the published requirement
3. The statement caused Injury: Schnitt needed to show damages associated with the statements made by Clem on the radio
4. The statement was false
5. The statement was not privileged
6. There was actual malice: This is an extra element that only applies to public figures and officials. Because both parties in this case were in the public eye (or should we say ear) they also fall into this category. Schnitt would have to prove that the statements made by Clem had actual malice behind them.

Defamation is a term that gets thrown around rather casually in society; but as you can see from the elements outlined above, proving defamation against a public figure is no easy task. However, just because Clem was found not guilty this time around does not mean that he will be as lucky in the future.

And remember, if you ever find yourself in trouble with the law, give the attorneys at Finebloom and Haenel P.A. a call to discuss your case.