Two Plaintiffs. Two Courts. One Verdict: You Don't Get to Escape Scrutiny.

Two very different organizations — a Florida vape empire and a national Satanic religious group — walked into court this week to fight back against unflattering press coverage. Both walked out empty-handed.

The cases are unrelated. But together, they deliver a clear message about how American defamation law actually works.

The King of Vape vs. The New York Post

Mohammed Shriteh runs seventeen vape retail stores in southwest Florida under the brand name "the King of Vape." He sued NYP Holdings — the company behind the New York Post — over a 2023 article headlined "Florida's Israel-hating 'King of Vape' Faces Bipartisan Crackdown on Sale of Illicit, Kid-Friendly Chinese E-cigs."

Shriteh called the article false and defamatory. According to the court ruling by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell in the Middle District of Florida, the Post's article wasn't exactly friendly. It tied Shriteh to a 1991 Israeli court ruling that found he "crossed the line" as a journalist and "became an activist for a terror organization" by passing Hamas information to readers. It also noted a New York Attorney General lawsuit against his distribution company, Safa Goods, for allegedly targeting underage e-cigarette users.

Shriteh's own original complaint — filed by him — described himself as a former journalist who reported for the New York Times, Reuters, and CBS News. He said he received the John R. Aubuchon International Freedom of the Press Award in 1993. He co-authored a book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Israeli professors.

The court looked at that and said: you're a public figure. Public figures have to prove actual malice — that the publisher KNEW the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Shriteh couldn't prove that.

So the court dismissed the complaint — but gave him a chance to fix it.

Shriteh's legal team got creative. Instead of proving actual malice, they filed a new complaint that simply deleted all the parts that made him look like a public figure. No more mention of press awards. No more journalism credentials. No more book.

Judge Chappell rejected the approach, according to the Reason/Volokh Conspiracy report on the ruling.

The court called it what it was: bad faith pleading. You don't get to surgically remove the facts about yourself to escape a legal standard that already applied to you. The case was thrown out.

The Satanic Temple vs. Newsweek

In October 2021, Newsweek published a piece by Washington-based reporter Julia Duin titled "Orgies, Harassment, Fraud: Satanic Temple Rocked by Accusations, Lawsuit." It detailed internal disputes within the Salem, Massachusetts-based organization, which claims over 500,000 members.

The Temple sued for libel. By the time the case reached the appeals stage, the entire case had narrowed down to a single quote — from a former Temple member describing "accounts of sexual abuse being covered up in ways that were more than anecdotal" within the organization.

The Second Circuit — Judges Alison Nathan, José Cabranes, and Sarah Merriam — upheld the dismissal, according to both Bloomberg Law and the Volokh Conspiracy's detailed breakdown.

The court ruled on two grounds. First, under standard First Amendment defamation law, no reasonable jury could find Newsweek knew the quote was false when they published it. Duin got the quote from an actual former member. That's reporting.

Second, the court applied New York's anti-SLAPP statute. That law goes further than the First Amendment. It forces libel plaintiffs to prove actual malice even for statements about private figures, as long as the statements were made in a public forum on a matter of public interest.

Newsweek's website is a public forum. Sexual abuse cover-ups inside a 500,000-member organization is a matter of public interest. Case closed.

The court also confirmed that New York's anti-SLAPP law is substantive, not procedural — meaning it applies in federal court, not just state court. This legal holding will affect future cases.

What the Rulings Show

The Satanic Temple ruling strengthens one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country and confirms its reach into federal courts. Any journalist operating out of New York — or any organization contemplating a lawsuit against them — needs to understand this.

The King of Vape case is a textbook warning about litigation strategy backfiring. By filing repeated complaints and then trying to delete his own history from the record, Shriteh turned a winnable amendment into a case study in bad faith. His own bragging about press credentials triggered the public figure standard in the first place.

Neither plaintiff was necessarily wrong to feel aggrieved. The Post's headline was sharp. Newsweek's article was damaging. But feeling wronged is not the legal standard.

What This Means for Everyone Else

If you make yourself a public figure — through awards, books, press coverage, or running a 500,000-member organization — you accept scrutiny.

Journalists operating in good faith, publishing quotes from real sources on real matters of public concern, are protected. Especially in New York.

And if you try to game a court by erasing your own history from a complaint? Judges read previous filings.