In another legal victory for the makers of "Borat," a Los Angeles judge has ruled that a rodeo spectator who appears briefly in the hit "mockumentary" made a political statement by displaying the Confederate flag on his cap.

The ruling dismissed a suit that focused on a scene from "Borat" in which the title character, played by Sacha Baron Cohen, proclaims his support for the “War of Terror” at a rodeo in Roanoke, Va.

While Baron Cohen sings “our Kazakh national anthem” to the tune of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the film cuts to a shot of a burly, bearded man in the crowd. The spectator, who is not identified in the suit, claimed the film falsely portrayed him as “uneducated, racist, sexist and bigoted."

The defendants brought a motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law, which applies to claims based on an act in furtherance of the defendant's exercise of free speech rights.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Biderman noted that “There is no requirement that the plaintiff have engaged in speech activity.” But in granting the motion, he found the rodeo spectator “did make a 'statement'” with his attire -- a dark baseball cap adorned with the Confederate flag.

“Clothing may constitute speech (particularly when it bears printed language),” he said in a minute order, and

the movie makes its own statement about issues engendered by display of the Confederate flag through Plaintiff's own statement, specifically, his public display of the flag.

In February, the same judge dismissed the case of two South Carolina fraternity brothers who are depicted in “Borat” making racist and sexist comments. “[T]he issues in this action are nearly identical to those considered at length by the Court in the related action,” he noted.

Biderman did not agree, however, with the defense's argument that “Borat” expresses speech about “biker gangs” and “biker culture.” “[T]hese themes are not addressed in the movie,” he said.

Seven “Borat”-related cases involving nine plaintiffs (see table) have so far been filed in five states. A motion to dismiss is pending in Mississippi, where a woman who is shown in a scene at a Pentecostal church meeting claims the filmmakers mocked her faith.

“The allegation that a person's religion has been 'mocked' or for that matter is the subject of 'contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule' is not actionable under the First Amendment,” the motion says.

The two Los Angeles cases could become quite expensive for the plaintiffs since, under California law, a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to an award of attorney's fees. A hearing is scheduled June 28 on the defense's request for an award of about $220,000 in the frat brothers' case.