Defendants brief The defense is also relying on the First Amendment to prove that their actions are protected

under the freedom of information, speech and expression too. The first defendant accept having published the material which the plaintiffs claim but goes ahead to assert that his work was not in any way defamatory. On damage to property, he denies liability fully and puts forward the defense of being in another place during that time. The second defendant denies liability in both defamation and damage to property and it is upon the plaintiff to prove its involvement. It claims that the damage was caused by other unknown persons whom the plaintiff has failed to bring in court and as such they are victims of circumstances. The lawyer of the two punches holes to the plaintiff case by trying to prove that the account which uploaded the video on YouTube does not belong to the defendants and encourages that court to rule in their favor. The lawyer finally dismisses all the claims by the plaintiff on grounds that no sufficient cause of action is shown and as such the defendants should be awarded costs.

DEFENDANTS CASE The defendants submitted their defenses to counter the plaintiff case. The first defendant argues that he was a man of God cannot do such terrible acts. He went ahead to argue that he is a Ministry man who is well versed with the Bible and clearly understands the Ten Commandments. He added that He has always abided by them and in this case he particularly quoted You shall not kill as a commandment that he holds dearly in his heart. Thus he put the plaintiff to strict proof on the fact that he in collaboration with the second defendant injured the children and murdered the adults. On publishing defamatory materials the 1st defendant argued that he is renowned writer and he feels that it is his duty to tell the public the truth. He thus was keen to assert that he would be relying on the defense that he was telling the truth about the plaintiffs. The first defendant denied any involvement in making a video which was later uploaded on YouTube as the plaintiff was claiming and he says that he does not own the YouTube account or the website that the plaintiff claims to be associated with the video. In his submission, he added that it is true that he in conjunction with the second defendant organized a demonstration but they never planned any attacks on the plaintiffs. He said that it was a peaceful demonstration and he never carried any stones, petroleum bombs, nor did he

procure, encourage or fund the attacks against the plaintiff. He went ahead and added that after sometimes, he left the demonstration so as to attend another important Ministry meeting which was to be held in Los Angeles and became aware of the attacks on the plaintiff through twitter. He therefore denied any violent acts that were leveled against the plaintiff and Muslims claiming that he is an innocent party, instead it was the real perpetrators who should be in court. The second defendant on the other hand denied all the claims that were being leveled upon them. It submitted that it is a Christian Organization that is made up of very many Christian Ministries as members including Jims Wayne HEALING ministries. On defamation of the plaintiffs, it denied publishing any information in its website with the intention of harming the reputation of the plaintiff. It added that it only provides a platform for the various religious individual to express themselves and it does not publish itself. Accordingly, each person has a personal account that is protected by a password and he or she can log in and post their written work. It also added that it is after the public complains that it can restrict a publication otherwise it cannot act otherwise. In its defense on defamation it added that they removed the publication from the site after the police requested them to, and in its honest opinion the publication was not a defamatory publication. And even if it was, then it is the 1st defendant who should be liable because he is the one who logged in and published the article. It provided that holding the organization liable for the acts will be holding the entire membership responsible to an incident that they are not involved. It also added that it was against Muslims using their faith as a tool of motivation for terrorism attack but that was not a valid reason to make them to attack them. It completely denied being participants in the attacks and argued that there might have been other strangers who pretended to be Christians in order carry out the attack. Defendants lawyer The defendants lawyer largely based his arguments on freedoms of speech and expression which is a guaranteed under the constitution of the US in the first amendment. He argued that the defendants are fully guaranteed to speak freely and express themselves. He went ahead to assert that by the first defendant writing and publishing information on the second defendants site, he was in the shell of freedom of expression and speech. The lawyer boldly started that the evidence which purports to prove that the video on YouTube was made and uploaded is not satisfactory. Firsts the plaintiff failed to mention where the video was made and by whom specifically, there was also a failure to point clearly who owned the Gmail account which uploaded the video. According to the lawyer failure to connect the defendants to the uploading of the video meant that there was no defamation; and if there was, it was not as a result of the defendants but because of someone else fault.

The lawyer went ahead to add that the court should go ahead and dismiss the suit with costs awarded to the defendants since the plaintiffs claim revealed no cause of action, the case was a waste of judicial time and that the plaintiffs should have weighed to see if they had a strong case against the two defendants. The defendants lawyer argued that issuing an injunction to the defendants will be curtailing their rights under the First Amendment.