In the Seventh Circuit’s Friday ruling, issued in Fredin v. Klasfeld (the document does not name the judges who took part):
Brock Fredin, a commentator on social media, appealed the dismissal of his diversity suit, which alleged that a journalist defamed him by reporting on his well-documented history of harassing women and by likening that conduct to his recent critique of a law clerk working for a state-court judge involved in a prominent legal matter….
Fredin operates an X account (formerly Twitter) in which he criticized Allison Greenfield, the law clerk for the state-court judge presiding over a civil fraud case brought by the State of New York against President Donald Trump and others. Fredin charged Greenfield with violating ethics rules, exhibiting political bias against President Trump, and leaking confidential information about the trial to reporters. Fredin rose to prominence after President Trump reposted Fredin’s critique and himself weighed in against Greenfield.
Shortly thereafter, a journalist named Adam Klasfeld, who was covering the fraud case, published an online piece in The Messenger that exposed Fredin’s history of harassing women—well-documented through court records of restraining orders and criminal charges against Fredin. Klasfeld noted that Fredin harassed several women by creating websites in their names, emailing their employers and colleagues with accusations of criminal behavior, and filing complaints with their professional organizations.
We will later review the exact statements, but for now it is enough to say that Klasfeld made clear he relied on court records. He repeatedly qualified the accusations with phrases such as “a court found,” “court records show,” and “[the judge] wrote.” He 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 bodies, and posted on his social media a website (with a URL bearing Greenfield’s name) inviting readers to criticize her and call for her disbarment….
Fredin sued Klasfeld for defamation, among other claims, but the district court held that “[t]he district court did not err by concluding that the reporting was substantially true.”
As far as we can determine, Fredin faults Klasfeld for circulating false accusations by his alleged victims. Yet that critique misapprehends the gist of Klasfeld’s article. Klasfeld did not claim he spoke with the women and repeated their accusations; he stated that he was conveying what courts had said about Fredin’s conduct with women. By narrowing his reporting in this manner, Klasfeld protected himself from liability. Whether Fredin’s accusers are lying—a position rejected by every court that has addressed the issue—is beside the point. What matters is whether Klasfeld’s portrayal of the court documents is substantially true.
The district court did not err in finding substantial truth in the reporting. A direct comparison of Klasfeld’s reporting with the pertinent court records clarifies this:
Klasfeld asserted 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 claimed Fredin “has been criminally convicted multiple times for violating two of those orders.” That court likewise 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 asserted Fredin “is currently under criminal investigation for more suspected restraining order violations and possible stalking.” Wisconsin court records show 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 harassed his victims by contacting their colleagues, schools, and professional organizations with accusations of “criminal conduct,” by urging others to file complaints against them, and by crafting websites that publicized personal information like home addresses. Fredin II, 500 F. Supp. 3d at 762–67. This behavior justified restraining orders. Id. Klasfeld asserted Fredin had filed “retaliatory lawsuits” against his victims. That same court concluded that Fredin had used litigation in bad faith to evade the 50-year harassment orders, a point on which state courts agreed. Fredin I, 2020 WL 6867424, at *10. Klasfeld claimed that Fredin “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 a September 2020 appellate brief.” That same court used nearly identical 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. From this side-by-side comparison, it is clear that Klasfeld’s reporting was not defamatory….
The court further stated:
Fredin also generally challenges the district court’s conclusion that Klasfeld was expressing an opinion when he compared Fredin’s past harassment to Fredin’s critique of Greenfield. Fredin stresses Klasfeld’s notes that his criticism “echoes” and “mirrors” his own pattern of “harassing” and “threatening” other women. In Fredin’s view, these references evoke notions of criminal harassment, which the district court should have treated as an actionable factual statement….
As the district court observed, Fredin does not dispute the factual basis for Klasfeld’s reporting. Fredin filed a complaint against Greenfield with four disciplinary bodies and mailed the complaint to her judge. He also posted on social media a website that used Greenfield’s name in the URL, labeled her a “Democratic Operative and Hack,” published her photo, and called for her disbarment. Because Fredin’s defamation claim hinges on whether Klasfeld arrived at the correct opinion from disclosed, truthful facts, the claim fails as a matter of law.
The court also rejected other claims Fredin had raised. Those who have followed the blog for years may recall Fredin from a 2018 post titled Man Forbidden from Identifying Twitter Shaming Activist, Court Order Seems to Say.
The docket likewise notes:
Our review of Fredin’s opening and reply briefs shows that he has cited cases, and included quotations from those cases, that are misleading or even nonexistent. We issue this order to give Fredin an opportunity to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and to obtain additional information about his use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting his briefs. Fredin must respond on or before July 10, 2026, and explain whether any form of generative-artificial intelligence assistance was employed in preparing his Fredin briefs. He is also asked to provide any further explanation regarding any inaccurate citations or quoted language that does not appear in the cited decisions.
Brian C. Spahn of Godfrey & Kahn S.C. represents Klasfeld.
