Post Falls blogger Summer Bushnell faced scrutiny from the Idaho Supreme Court this week when she argued that the court should overturn a $1.1 million civil judgement against her for falsely claiming that a drag performer exposed himself to a crowd that included children during a Pride event in 2022.

In 2024, a Kootenai County jury unanimously found that Bushnell defamed Eric Posey by posting a doctored video of his performance at the City Park bandshell, in which a blurred spot covered what she claimed were his “fully exposed genitals.” The unedited footage showed no exposure occurred. 

Jurors awarded Posey $926,000 in compensatory damages for defamation and $250,000 in additional punitive damages. Bushnell appealed the case and represented herself Thursday when she went before the Idaho Supreme Court in Lewiston. 

Bushnell alleged that the jury selection process and verdict form “presupposed wrongdoing” on her part and argued that the punitive damages awarded by the jury were “not clearly tied” to her conduct.

“I maintain that I don’t think the punitive damages were anchored in real things,” she said. 

Justice Gregory Moeller questioned Bushnell’s assertion that the facts of the case weren’t serious enough to qualify for punitive damages. 

“The allegations in this case of modifying a video and lying about its contents and publicizing it sound pretty serious,” he said. 

The day of Posey’s performance, Bushnell posted a video of herself discussing the mass arrest of Patriot Front members near City Park, as well as footage from Posey’s performance. 

“Why did no one arrest the man in a dress who flashed his genitalia to minors and people in the crowd?” she said in the video. “No one said anything about it and there’s video. I’m going to put up a blurred video to prove it.” 

The next day, Bushnell published an edited video, which included a blur over Posey’s pelvis and shots of children watching the stage. 

“She put it out there so that other people would repost it,” Wendy Olson, Posey’s attorney, told the court Thursday. “She urged people who saw her post to contact law enforcement.” 

The edited video garnered many thousands of views and was republished many times by others, sparking national news coverage and a police investigation. 

City prosecutors declined to file charges and publicly stated that the unedited video showed no exposure. Unedited footage also revealed that the images of children were recorded during a different performance and spliced into the video of Posey’s performance. 

“I did not lie,” Bushnell said in court Thursday. “I am not responsible for the repeated repostings.” 

During the trial, Posey testified that Bushnell’s false claims negatively impacted him. He said he received death threats and faced harassment while edited images of him dancing at the bandshell became a symbol of a national movement against drag. 

“We think that the evidence was clear here to prove the defamation claims,” Olson said. “This court should affirm in all respects the jury’s verdict.” 

Several justices noted that Bushnell’s filings cited nonexistent cases or misrepresented the law. Justice Robyn Brody said she couldn’t help but think Bushnell had used artificial intelligence to prepare her filings. 

“It’s one of the problems that exists when self-represented litigants or, frankly, even attorneys rely on a computer resource to generate information and briefing to this court,” she said. 

Bushnell said she did her own research. 

“I am a good writer,” she said. “I am not a legal expert.” 

Second District Judge Mark Monson, who served as a pro tempore justice Thursday, said the problems with Bushnell’s appeal were bigger than a lack of expertise. 

“There are numerous citations that are just — I’m going to use the word fake,” he said. “They just don’t exist. You’re telling us that you had done your own research and there’s some issues with the citations, but it goes beyond that.” 

Moeller said the facts of the case combined with the contents of Bushnell’s filings were a bad look. 

“I’m not sure if the irony of this has dawned upon you,” he said. “Trials are quests for truth. This is a case that’s about allegedly telling lies about someone to hurt their reputation. Then you file documents that are filled with untruths because of the sources that you filed. It seems that everything about this case has been to divert the jury or to divert the judges or to divert the public, for that matter, from truth.” 

The court took the matter under advisement Thursday and will issue an opinion at a later time.