Mount Pleasant Mayor Sues Former Council Member Over Defamatory Accusations

In a case that highlights escalating tensions in Mount Pleasant’s political circles, Mayor Will Haynie has filed a civil lawsuit against former town council member Kevin Cunnane, accusing him of repeatedly and falsely labeling Haynie a pedophile.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, December 23, alleges that Cunnane made these defamatory statements to third parties on multiple occasions, including on December 8, 2023, and again in mid-October of this year. According to court documents, Haynie first became aware of these allegations on December 26, 2023.

The dispute between the two political figures appears to have roots dating back to 2018 when both were active in Mount Pleasant local politics. According to the lawsuit, the animosity began in May 2018 after Cunnane allegedly posted what Haynie considered a vulgar message on Facebook. When Haynie responded that such behavior was “beneath the office he was elected to serve,” the lawsuit claims Cunnane began “harboring a personal grudge.”

The legal complaint specifically addresses the challenge Haynie faces as a public figure. Under established defamation law, public officials must prove “actual malice” – demonstrating that the defendant either knew the statements were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth. Haynie’s lawsuit explicitly argues that Cunnane’s statements meet this higher legal threshold.

Mount Pleasant, South Carolina’s fourth-largest municipality with approximately 90,000 residents, has seen its share of political tensions as it grapples with rapid growth and development in recent years. The town, located across the harbor from Charleston, has experienced significant demographic and economic changes, creating a sometimes contentious political environment.

Defamation lawsuits involving public officials are relatively rare but not unprecedented in South Carolina politics. Such cases typically face significant legal hurdles due to First Amendment protections and the heightened “actual malice” standard established by the landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan.

Haynie’s lawsuit seeks several remedies beyond monetary damages. He has requested a jury trial and is pursuing a permanent injunction that would bar Cunnane from making similar defamatory statements in the future. Perhaps most notably, Haynie is asking the court to order Cunnane to issue a written apology and retraction, with the unusual stipulation that Haynie would control how such a statement would be published.

When contacted for comment, the mayor’s office emphasized that Haynie filed the lawsuit as a private individual rather than in his official capacity, and declined to provide additional statements. Cunnane was also approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.

The case underscores the often personal nature of local politics and raises questions about the line between protected political speech and defamation. Legal experts note that allegations of criminal behavior, particularly of such a serious nature, generally fall outside protected opinion speech when presented as factual statements.

As the lawsuit proceeds through the court system, it will likely draw significant attention from both legal observers and the local community. The case could potentially set precedents regarding defamation claims in politically charged environments and the remedies available to public officials who believe they have been falsely accused.