The Defamation Lawsuit Shaking South Carolina’s Political Core

Truth, Texts, and Power: The Defamation Lawsuit Shaking South Carolina’s Political Core

By James Seidel | Crime and Cask News

BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC — A defamation lawsuit filed by a veteran South Carolina lawmaker has exploded into one of the most closely watched civil cases in the state—one that pits political power against independent media, and places truth, intent, and character on trial.

At the heart of the case: a January 4, 2024 article published by journalist Lee Granade, titled:

“Lawmaker that threatened Constituent with Arrest for exposing his dirty laundry Now Said to be Reconsidering his Political Future.”

The lawmaker, William G. Herbkersman, who has represented House District 118 for over 20 years, a coastal district in Beaufort County, including Bluffton and nearby Lowcountry communities, claims the article was not only defamatory—but written and published with actual malice. He names as defendants:

• Lee Granade

• David Hucks, managing editor of MyrtleBeachSC News

• MyrtleBeachSC News itself

Filed under Case No. 2024CP0700079, the complaint alleges that Granade and Hucks knowingly misrepresented a private text exchange with a female critic and created a false narrative that he was reconsidering his candidacy under pressure from personal scandal.

The Allegations

In his January 12, 2024 court filing, Herbkersman accuses the defendants of:

• Publishing false, misleading, and malicious statements

• Damaging his reputation within the business, political, and social community

• Deliberately portraying him as “a criminal” and “unfit” to serve

• Causing lasting harm including “mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of income”

He is seeking:

• An injunction to remove the article and retract the claims

• Actual and punitive damages

• Attorney’s fees and further relief as the court deems appropriate

The case was filed in the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas, and has since resulted in a flurry of legal activity over the last 12 months.

️ Granade Responds: “I Stand by the Truth”

In a formal denial filed into the record, journalist Lee Granade has refuted every key element of the lawmaker’s complaint.

She maintains that:

• The article was based on real text conversations sent to her directly

• The reporting was done without malice, based on facts

• The story addressed matters of legitimate public concern—namely, the conduct of an elected official

Granade’s defense argues this is a political lawsuit designed to silence dissent and intimidate members of the press who challenge entrenched power.

The Affidavit That Could Change Everything

The defense gained major traction in late February 2025, when a woman came forward, a central figure in the story, filed a notarized affidavit that may shift the trajectory of the case.

The person, a friend of Granade’s for nearly 7 years, confirmed under oath that:

1. She authored the text messages published in Granade’s article.

2. Granade did not misrepresent or alter any of their content.

3. When she met the plaintiff, he advised her that his divorce was finalized—or would be imminently.

Most notably, she stated:

“He did not consistently conduct himself in a gentlemanly nor honest manner. I have no desire nor intent to be involved romantically with a married man.”

This statement not only validates Granade’s sourcing—it contradicts the plaintiff’s claim that the article was based on false information. It also paints a picture of personal duplicity that adds weight to Granade’s reporting. (The woman’s name has been redacted but may be seen on SC Courts if searched within the lawsuit).

The Broader Implications

This case isn’t just about one article or one lawmaker—it represents a broader collision between free press and political privilege in a state already under national scrutiny following high-profile cases like the Murdaugh murders and the Satterfield civil battles.

Here are the core issues at stake:

• Can journalists report on private communications involving public officials if they pertain to matters of public concern?

• Where is the line between fair commentary and actionable defamation?

• Do elected officials have greater legal protection—or less—when they step into the public spotlight?

Granade and Hucks argue that if the court sides with the plaintiff, it would set a dangerous precedent, stifling watchdog journalism in communities where mainstream media often fail to dig deep.

⚖️ What’s Next?

As of this writing:

• The article remains online.

• The affidavits have been entered into the court record.

• The court has yet to rule on any motions to dismiss or grant injunctive relief.

But the outlines of the battlefield are now clear:
On one side, a long-serving politician claiming injury and falsehood.
On the other, a journalist standing firm on truth, facts, and the First Amendment—now backed by sworn testimony from her source.

️ Crime and Cask’s View

The defamation suit in Beaufort County is no longer just a local story—it’s a state-level test of press freedom, narrative control, and how far elected officials will go to protect their image.

✅ Bottom Line in This Case:

To succeed in a defamation suit, the South Carolina legislator must prove that:

1. The statements were false;

2. They were about him;

3. They were published to third parties;

4. His reputation was harmed;

5. And Granade and Hucks acted with actual malice—either knowing the statements were false or recklessly ignoring evidence to the contrary.

6. To prove actual malice, a plaintiff must show that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

   This means it’s not enough that the media made a mistake or got a fact wrong. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant:

   • Knew the statement was false, or

   • Had serious doubts about the truth and published it anyway

7. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

   This landmark Supreme Court ruling established the core legal principle for defamation cases involving public officials or public figures.

Granade’s defense—particularly the affidavit confirming the authenticity of the texts—will make it very difficult for the plaintiff to meet this high burden.

If Granade is exonerated or not, her case will likely become a landmark in South Carolina media law. And in a climate where truth is too often weaponized, that makes this lawsuit not only legally significant—but morally urgent.

Conclusion: Is It Defamatory?

Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, the answer is: No—unless the plaintiff can prove actual malice.

Granade’s article:

• Cites sources (Hoagland, text messages, tax records)

• Includes opinions and rhetorical language clearly presented as such

• Does not outright accuse Herbkersman of a crime

• Is bolstered by a sworn affidavit supporting key facts

To be considered defamation, the plaintiff would need to prove:

• The article made false factual assertions, not just opinions

• Granade knew they were false, or acted with reckless disregard

• These falsehoods caused quantifiable harm

Given the affidavit, screenshots, and Granade’s careful sourcing, this will be extremely difficult to prove.

Crime and Cask News will continue to follow developments in Case #2024CP0700079 as they unfold.
Have a tip or legal analysis to offer? Email us at crimeandcask@gmail.com.

Connect with CC News Network

Over 1,500,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!

Join Our 100,000+ Social Media Fans:

• Follow Us on X: @CCNewsNetwork
• Follow Us on TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
• Facebook: CC News Network
• Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – Listen to Our Hit True Crime Talk Radio Show
• Follow Us on Amazon Books: Click here to follow
• Hire Us on Cameo: @CC News Network
• Follow Us on Spotify: @CC Records
• Follow Us on Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
• Follow Us on Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
• New Book: Trumped Up, by Josh Pruitt and James Seidel