The Virginia Defamation Law Blog

Under Virginia law, the necessary elements of the tort of defamation (which includes both libel and slander) are usually expressed as (1) a publication about the plaintiff, (2) of an actionable statement, (3) with the requisite intent. This sounds simple enough, but proper application of these principles is far more complicated than one would expect. This is, in part, due to the fact that the test is circular, as it begs the question of what an "actionable statement" is. It is more useful to think of Virginia law of defamation as encompassing the following eight elements: (1) a factual assertion (as opposed to an expression of opinion); (2) that is false; (3) and defamatory in nature; (4) that is about the plaintiff; (5) and made to a third party; (6) in a setting or context that isn't privileged; (7) with the requisite degree of fault; (8) that causes actual reputational injury.

Element (6) refers to a defense, not an element of the plaintiff's proof, but I've included it in the list to clarify that an otherwise defamatory statement made in a privileged setting will not be actionable in a court of law. Furthermore, element (8)--harm to reputation--is presumed (and need not be proven) in those situations deemed to constitute "defamation per se."

Libel and slander will be considered "per se" defamatory if it (1) imputes the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude; (2) imputes that the person is infected with a contagious disease which would exclude the party from society; (3) imputes an unfitness to perform the duties of a job or a lack of integrity in the performance of those duties; or (4) prejudices the party in his or her profession or trade. Statements that might qualify as defamation per se include an allegation that one has acted unprofessionally, an attack on a person's honesty and veracity, a false report of a corporations' profit and earnings, a statement regarding a company's inability to pay bills, and a statement suggesting a person is an incompetent businessman.

To make things more confusing, some courts use "per se" and "per quod" to distinguish between words that are defamatory on their face and words which do not appear to be defamatory, but are defamatory by implication, or that become defamatory when additional facts are made known. (When used in this sense, defamation per se refers not to the list of the four most serious categories described above, but to words defamatory on their face). Whichever definition of "per se" is used, "per quod" is the catch-all phrase that basically means "not per se."

Hundreds of Virginia state and federal cases have struggled to apply the law of defamation in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution, as defamation cases necessarily involve a careful balancing of vital constitutional and common law rights. On the one hand, there is the First Amendment's fundamental protection of free speech. On the other hand, there is a common law obligation not to abuse the First Amendment with unjustified attacks against the reputation and dignity of others. Defamation law attempts to accommodate these seemingly antithetical interests by providing a legal remedy for persons subjected to false and defamatory statements while limiting the range of statements considered defamatory and actionable.

Not every unflattering or critical remark will constitute actionable defamation. Statements that are merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurt the plaintiff's feelings, without more, are not actionable. To be defamatory, a statement must be more than merely critical; it must "make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous." A defamatory statement is one that causes reputational harm to a plaintiff, holding the plaintiff up to scorn, ridicule, hatred, or contempt--in other words, the type of statement that would tend to deter third parties from dealing with the plaintiff. To assert a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must show that a defendant published such a statement, that it was both factual in nature and false, and that it concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff's reputation. A plaintiff in a Virginia defamation action must plead the statement with particularity, identifying the exact words claimed to be defamatory. Failure to allege the specific words claimed to be defamatory can lead to a dismissal of the case.

Expressions of opinion are also not actionable as defamation. Statements of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are deemed privileged and no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for libel or slander. This is because a statement of opinion is not an assertion of fact that can be proven false, and falsity is a required element of a defamation claim. Statements of opinion are also protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Distinguishing fact from opinion is not always easy. Courts need to examine whether the specific language has a precise meaning, whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false, and whether the context in which the communication was made affects the meaning of the statement.

Statements expressed in factual language but which would not be reasonably understood as an assertion of fact are not actionable. Rhetorical hyperbole, for example, is generally not interpreted literally, and therefore cannot support a defamation action. For example, defamation cases have been dismissed in Virginia where a talk show host said a government contractor had employees in Iraq who were "all over the country, killing people," and where a newspaper article referred to a university official as the "Director of Butt Licking." These statements were not literally true, but could not reasonably be understood as conveying actual facts. Other examples include parody, gross exaggeration, sarcasm, and irony.

Conversely, statements expressed in language suggesting mere opinion may nevertheless be treated as implied statements of fact if the statement suggests the speaker's opinion is based on the speaker's knowledge of undisclosed facts. Such statements may be actionable not because they convey "false opinions," but rather because a reasonable listener or reader would infer that the speaker or writer knows certain facts, unknown to the audience, which support the opinion and are detrimental to the reputation of the person about whom the statement is made. In other words, a statement of opinion that is based on undisclosed facts is potentially actionable because it carries with it an implicit statement of those facts.

Statements that are only partially false may not be sufficient to support a claim of libel or slander. If an allegedly defamatory statement is substantially true, it will usually be enough to defeat a defamation action. Substantial truth turns on the understanding of the reasonable listener or reader. In general, a statement is substantially true if the statement would not have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the complete truth would have produced. In other words, it is not necessary to demonstrate complete accuracy to defeat a charge of defamation. It is only necessary that the gist or substance of the challenged statements be true.

Celebrities, politicians, and other public figures have a higher burden in defamation actions. The First Amendment requires that in defamation actions brought by public figures, the plaintiff must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made with "actual malice," meaning that it was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Hatfill v. The New York Times Co., 532 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2008). Where a statement on a matter of public concern expresses or reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth.

Virginia defamation law is vast and complex. For more information, or to discuss the application of the law to a particular set of facts, consult a defamation attorney.

First, don't hire a lawyer. (What do lawyers know about defamation law, anyway?) Second, refuse to comply with the court's orders and local rules. Finally, file a whole bunch of frivolous and nonsensical motions, such as a "Motion for Declaration All Rulings & Judgments Be Rendered Null & Void," a motion against opposing counsel for engaging in "felonious conspirator tactics," and a "Motion to Declare All Your Base Are Belong to Us." With the exception of the "all your base" example, a defendant recently tried all of these tactics in North Carolina federal court and came away with a judgment against him that included punitive damages.

William Mann, a member of the Professional Golfers Association Hall of Fame, acquired a North Carolina country club but then declared bankruptcy and moved to South Carolina. M. Dale Swiggett sent a letter to hundreds of recipients accusing Mann of fraud and crimes and claiming Mann left North Carolina after declaring bankruptcy and paid cash for his South Carolina house. Swiggett then sent a letter to the judge who had presided over Mann's bankruptcy, accusing Mann of covering up "sludge spreading and spills."

Mann sued Swiggett in the Eastern District of North Carolina for libel, seeking $2 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages for injury to his reputation and livelihood. Swiggett, acting pro se, responded by overloading the court's docket with numerous groundless motions, inducing the court to strike his Answer as a sanction. After entering summary judgment in Mann's favor, the only remaining issue was the amount of damages.

Even in a libel per se case like this one, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to support an award of compensatory damages. Speculative damages are not recoverable.

The Court found that while Mann demonstrated inconvenience and embarrassment, he failed to present sufficient evidence of damage to reputation, loss of enjoyment of life, or mental suffering. Although Mann feared losing his job and said he missed out on consulting work, his job remained intact and he failed to show actual consulting opportunities he'd lost. The Court, therefore, awarded only $100.00 in compensatory damages. Still, the Court awarded $25,000 in punitive damages in light of the "reprehensibility" of Swiggett's behavior.

On October 4, 2012, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a personal trainer, represented by Virginia Beach lawyer Jeremiah A. Denton III, and allowed to stand the summary judgment order entered by the Norfolk Circuit Court against the trainer on her defamation claim. This shows just how serious the Virginia Supreme Court is about the absolute privilege that extends to defamatory statements made in demand letters preliminary to contemplated litigation and sent in good faith. Summary judgment is appropriate if a defamation claim is based on a privileged statement.

Darryl and Julie Cummings were members of the Norfolk Yacht and Country Club ("NYCC"). Deborah Allison, a personal trainer at NYCC and at Norfolk Academy, pursued and entered into a physical relationship with Julie. Darryl reported Addison's actions to NYCC management. Though the NYCC warned her not to pursue Julie Cummings on NYCC property, Addison disobeyed and was fired. Cummings and his wife ultimately divorced.

Darryl sued Addison for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and professional malpractice. Addison counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with a contract expectancy, and defamation. Addison's claims stemmed from Cummings' email to the NYCC president, a draft complaint he sent to NYCC's attorney, and emails he sent to Norfolk Academy's headmaster.

In the NYCC email, Cummings stated, "The Cummings family did not join the club for an employee to become a predator, stalk, and harass them or for an environment that would encourage this kind of behavior." Addison claimed this was libel per se but the Court found it mere opinion and therefore not actionable.

Addison also claimed Cummings' draft complaint defamed her. As the Virginia Supreme Court clarified in June 2012, communications made outside of court but preliminary to proposed judicial proceedings will be absolutely privileged from defamation liability where (1) the statement is made preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding; (2) the statement is "material, relevant or pertinent" to the proceeding; (3) the proceeding is contemplated in good faith and is under serious consideration; and (4) the communication is disclosed only to persons having an interest in the proposed proceeding.

The court applied an earlier version of this test and found that privilege should apply because the draft complaint had "some relation to a proceeding that is contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration" and because the draft complaint was substantially similar to the actual complaint.

Libel and slander claims depend to a large extent on whom the plaintiff targeted with the allegedly defamatory statement. Defamatory words may not support a cause of action unless they directly or inferentially refer to the plaintiff--this has come to be known as the "of and concerning" test. The defamation case filed against former Governor Eliot Spitzer and Slate Magazine Slate for a column Mr. Spitzer wrote in 2010 about an insurance bid-rigging scandal was recently dismissed by a New York court on the ground that the article did not sufficiently identify the plaintiff--a former insurance executive at Marsh & McLennan--as the subject of the statements.

William Gilman's work for Marsh included negotiating "contingent commissions"--fees paid by insurers to insurance brokers who place insurance business with the insurer. As attorney general, Spitzer took the position that Marsh's use of such commissions was illegal. A lawsuit ensued and Gilman was convicted of one count of restraint of trade and competition. While Gilman's appeal was pending, the trial judge vacated his conviction because exculpatory evidence had not been disclosed during trial. Spitzer wrote an article published on Slate.com in response to a Wall Street Journal article criticizing his handling of the Marsh case. Gilman brought a claim for defamation against Spitzer and Slate based on statements in Spitzer's article.

Gilman's defamation claim was based on (1) a reference to "the many employees of Marsh who have been convicted and sentenced to jail terms" and (2) the statement that Marsh's employees "pocketed ... increased fees and kickbacks." Defendants argued that neither of the challenged statements was "of and concerning" Gilman and therefore could not be defamatory.

Whether a statement is "of and concerning" the plaintiff is a question of law for the court to determine at the pleading stage, considering the challenged words in context and giving the language a natural reading. Because Gilman was not mentioned by name in the article, in order to be defamatory, the language must be such that persons reading it would understand that it refers to Gilman. Gilman argued that a reasonable reader would understand the statement to be about him based on preceding sentences referring to the dismissal of two cases after conviction. The court disagreed and found that no reasonable reader of the entire passage would come away thinking both that Gilman's case was dismissed after conviction and that he was convicted and jailed on those charges.

Regarding the statement that Marsh's employees "pocketed ... increased fees and kickbacks," the court noted that statements which refer to an organization do not implicate its members. Gilman argued that the article's preceding references to the two dismissed cases sufficiently tied him to the statement, but the court found that if anything, the preceding sentences tended to weaken any inference to Gilman. The court also rejected Gilman's attempt to characterize the challenged statement as referring to only 20 individuals who were subject to prosecution. Courts have allowed defamation claims to proceed where a statement referred generally to a group numbering 25 people or fewer, but the court here found the argument unsupported by the language which referred broadly to "Marsh" and "its employees" rather than to a subset of employees who were subject to prosecution. Finding that the allegedly defamatory statements could not be reasonably interpreted to be "of and concerning" Gilman, the court dismissed the defamation claims.

A jury awarded Russell Ebersole $7,500 in compensatory damages and $60,000 in punitive damages on his libel claim against Bridget Kline-Perry in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Kline-Perry moved for a new trial or, alternatively, a reduction of the punitive damages award, which the court treated as a motion for remittitur. Finding $60,000 to be unconstitutionally excessive, the court remitted the punitive damages to $15,000 and gave Mr. Ebersole the option of accepting the reduced amount or requesting a new trial.

The court agreed with Ms. Kline-Perry that the $60,000 award of punitive damages violated her right to due process. When faced with an excessive verdict, courts will generally order a remittitur. Remittitur is a process by which the court reduces the damages award while giving the plaintiff the option of re-trying the case in lieu of accepting the reduction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide specifically for remittitur, but precedent holds that a court should order remittitur when a jury award is so excessive as to result in a miscarriage of justice.

In determining whether a jury award of punitive damages violates due process, courts consider (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

The first factor is the most important. In analyzing the reprehensibility of a defendant's conduct, courts consider whether (1) the harm caused was physical or merely economic; (2) the tortious conduct evinced disregard of the health or safety of others; (3) the target of the conduct was financially vulnerable; (4) the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and (5) the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit.

In this case, the court found that Ms. Kline-Perry's statements accusing Mr. Ebersole of animal cruelty involved only economic harm, did not evince disregard for the safety of others, and was an isolated incident. While Mr. Ebersole was financially vulnerable at the time of the conduct (in the midst of a bankruptcy proceeding) the court found that Ms. Kline-Perry was motivated not by malice but by a desire to protect animals. The court held that, although not extraordinarily reprehensible, Ms. Kline-Perry's conduct was sufficiently blameworthy that the jury was justified in awarding some punitive damages.

The court found a disparity between the harm that Mr. Ebersole suffered and the punitive damages award. Mr. Ebersole recovered $7,500 in compensatory damages yet the jury awarded him eight times that in punitive damages. The court also found a disparity between the punitive damages award and the maximum criminal penalty for slander and libel which in this case would have been $2,500. Here, the punitive damages award was twenty-four times the maximum criminal penalty, an indication of a "grossly excessive" amount of punitive damages.

For these reasons, the court found the punitive damages award to violate Ms. Kline-Perry's due process rights, and it reduced the award by 75% to $15,000. The court gave Mr. Ebersole ten days to accept the remitted amount or request a new trial. On September 5, 2012, he reluctantly accepted.

Kenneth M. Seaton, sole proprietor of the Grant Resort Hotel and Convention Center in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, brought a defamation action against TripAdvisor after the hotel was identified by the travel site as the dirtiest hotel in America. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, however, found that TripAdvisor's list of "2011 Dirtiest Hotels" could not support a defamation claim and dismissed the case on August 22, 2012.

TripAdvisor relies solely on customer reviews to compile its "Dirtiest Hotels" list - it does not conduct an independent investigation of each hotel. Seaton claimed that TripAdvisor attempted to assure the public that its list is factual, reliable and trustworthy by including the following statements along with its list: (1) "World's Most Trusted Travel Advice"; (2) "TripAdvisor lifts the lid on America's Dirtiest Hotels"; (3) "Top 10 U.S. Crime-Scenes Revealed, According to Traveler Cleanliness Ratings"; (4) "Now, in its sixth year, and true to its promise to share the whole truth about hotels to help travelers plan their trips, TripAdvisor names and shames the nation's most hair-raising hotels"; (5) "This year, the tarnished title of America's dirtiest hotel goes to Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center, in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee." The list quoted a TripAdvisor user: "There was dirt at least ½ inch thick in the bathtub which was filled with lots of dark hair." The list also featured a photograph of a ripped bedspread.

Defamation claims require proof of false statements or false implications. Seaton contended that by publishing its "2011 Dirtiest Hotels" list, TripAdvisor was implying that the Grand Resort Hotel and Convention Center was, in fact, the dirtiest hotel in the United States and that a reasonable person reading the list would consider this supposed fact in making their travel plans. Seaton argued that the list was not mere hyperbole because it contained actual numerical rankings with comments suggesting that the rankings were based in actual fact.

The court agreed that a reasonable person might consider the list when making hotel plans, but found that "propensity to initiate negative mental contemplation on behalf of a potential patron" is not the test for defamation. In determining whether TripAdvisor's list is defamatory, the court would not consider whether the list is compelling but rather whether a reasonable person could understand the language in question as an assertion of fact or instead merely hyperbolic opinion or rhetorical exaggeration.

The court found that neither the fact that TripAdvisor numbered its opinions one through ten nor that it supported its opinions with data converts its opinions to objective statements of fact. A reasonable person would not confuse a ranking system based on consumer reviews for an objective assertion of fact. Rather, a reasonable person would know that the list reflected the opinions of TripAdvisor's online users. Seaton did not plead any facts that would lead the court to find that TripAdvisor made a statement of fact or of opinion that it intended readers to believe was based on facts. Finally, the court found that although unverified online user reviews are a poor evaluative method, the system is not sufficiently erroneous so as to be labeled defamatory. For these reasons, the court held that TripAdvisor's "Dirtiest Hotels" list is unverifiable rhetorical hyperbole and could not form the basis of a defamation action.

A court's role is to act as a "gatekeeper" where evidence is concerned, and under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a court should exclude expert testimony that is not reliable and helpful to the jury. Rule 702 provides that an expert's opinion is reliable if (1) it is based upon sufficient facts; (2) it is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently applied this three prong test and granted a defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony in a defamation case.

In Parsi v. Daioleslam, Dr. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and NIAC filed a defamation action against Seid Hassan Daioleslam alleging that Daioleslam published numerous false and defamatory statements on internet websites characterizing plaintiffs as members of a subversive and illegal Iranian lobby. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's statements injured their reputations, hampered NIAC's effectiveness as an advocacy group, and damaged their fundraising efforts. In support of their claims, plaintiffs proffered two experts. Plaintiffs hoped that the testimony of Debashis Aikat, a journalism professor, would establish that defendant's writings did not meet the standard of care for journalists. Plaintiffs submitted the testimony of Joel Morse, a financial economist, to establish plaintiff's economic damages suffered as a result of the alleged defamation. Defendant moved to exclude both men's testimony, arguing that neither expert's testimony met the standards of admissibility.

The court found all three reliability prongs of Rule 702 lacking in Aikat's testimony. First, the "sufficient facts" Aikat relied on were defendant's articles and sources cited therein. Because Aikat read only a haphazard selection of defendant's sources and no background material, the court found the "facts and data" Aikat relied on to be insufficient. Second, the court found Aikat's testimony was not the product of reliable principles and methods. Aikat refused to give any description of his methodology beyond reading and viewing. The court noted that Aikat's methodology could have been to compare defendant's performance to applicable professional standards, which would have been an acceptable methodology.

However, the court concluded that Aikat's view of the applicable professional standard was driven less by objective sources and more by his personal views which is not an acceptable methodology. Finally, the court held that even if Aikat identified an objective professional standard, he failed to reliably compare defendant's writings to that standard. He did not systematically review defendant's source materials, and he decided inexplicably that secondary materials were insufficient. He opined that defendant had not allowed plaintiffs to respond to claims made in defendant's writings, but did not explain this conclusion, and he ignored evidence that subjects had been given the opportunity to respond. Because none of the three Rule 702 prongs were met, the court did not examine whether Aikat's testimony would be helpful to the jury.

The court went on to examine the testimony of Joel Morse to determine whether it was relevant and reliable under Rule 702. The court found troublesome Morse's assumption that defendant's writings alone were responsible for NIAC's financial position, particularly when evidence indicated that NIAC's finances were affected by increased expenses and general economic conditions in the country. The court also had concerns about some of Morse's calculations--he used seemingly arbitrary baselines which he did not explain yet which aided plaintiffs' damages calculations. Morse did not discount any of his damages figures to their present value which the court found to be inexplicable as tort awards must be so discounted. The court found that "[g]iven the multiple factual, arithmetical, and theoretical errors," Morse's calculations were not reliable enough to put before a jury. The court therefore granted both of defendant's motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony.

Indiana lawyer Mark K. Phillips has filed a libel and slander action against two media outlets, Nexstar Broadcasting Group and Mission Broadcasting, for mistakenly identifying him as a child molester. In 2011, Mark S. Birge, Phillips' client, pleaded guilty to child molestation in an Indiana court. When the local news companies reported this story during the next two days, they mistakenly announced instead that Birge's attorney, Mark Phillips, had been convicted of child molestation and would be sentenced to up to 16 years in prison. The media companies published a correction to the story over a month later, but Phillips filed suit anyway for slander per se, libel per se, and defamation. He seeks more than $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Likely issues will include whether the lawyer is a "public figure" required to prove malice, the extent to which the media outlets are at fault for the mistaken report, and the legal effect of the subsequent correction.

Phillips asserts that the defendants are liable for defamation because they falsely identified him as the child molester knowing the statements to be false. As a result, he claims he "has suffered ridicule, damage to his professional and personal reputation within the community and the tri-state area, emotional and physical pain, disgrace, and stress within his marriage and with his family, embarrassment, and loss of opportunity to achieve his potential as a professional." Phillips suggests that the severity of the impact of these stories on him is a result of the fact that he is an active member of the community. He has coached a Special Olympics basketball team for over 18 years, is a member of multiple legal professional groups and country clubs, and maintains an active legal practice in multiple states.

In addition, Phillips claims that the stories posted on the Internet amount to libel per se and the televised broadcasts to slander per se because the stories falsely (and with reckless disregard for the truth) claimed that he committed a crime of moral turpitude. He seeks both compensatory damages and punitive damages for the malice, fraud, and gross negligence committed in the course of this reporting.

The defendants removed the case to federal court and have yet to file an answer. Phillips is representing himself.

Laurie Fine, the wife of Bernie Fine, former Associate Coach of the Syracuse University men's basketball team, has filed a libel and defamation action against ESPN and two of its employees, Mark Schwarz and Arthur Berko. ESPN published several stories about her relating to her husband's alleged molestation of minors. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In the 1980s, the Fines took in a Syracuse basketball 'ball boy,' Robert Davis, who later accused Bernie Fine of molesting him while he lived there. Davis also accused Laurie Fine of knowing about the molestation and allowing it to continue. He also claims to have had a sexual relationship with Laurie while he was in high school.

The complaint paints a picture of a troubled young man who financially took advantage of the Fines, often fabricating stories to trick them into giving him money. It asserts that, to elicit sympathy and funding, Davis told Laurie that Bernie had molested him in the 1980s but that the couple continued to enable him. The complaint portrays the plaintiff as suffering through conversations with Davis in hopes he would outgrow his problems, using sarcasm to keep from 'going off' on him and asking questions to 'test' how far the young man would go. These allegations appear to offer a different interpretation of statements attributed to her in a 2002 taped recording Davis made.

According to the complaint, Davis offered his molestation story to a Syracuse newspaper in 2002. The paper did not publish it due to lack of corroboration. He then approached ESPN and gave Schwarz and Berko a taped recording of a conversation he'd made, purportedly of a conversation he'd had with Laurie in which Laurie discusses her husband's activities. ESPN did not publish the story, but Ms. Fine says the ESPN reporter and producer remained interested and kept in touch with Davis.

Ms. Fine claims Davis used the publicity surrounding the Penn State child abuse scandal to reignite his story. She says the reporters had developed ill will toward the Fines and had become so personally invested in the story that they accepted questionable corroboration of a recanting witness and sent another potential corroborating witness to Davis for coaching on what to say and then leaked the story to a newspaper to bolster the story.

In late 2011, ESPN published excerpts from Davis' taped recording and published over 40 minutes of it last month. ESPN published several stories about Laurie Fine including one in February 2012 that quoted a Davis affidavit stating it was openly known that multiple Syracuse basketball players had engaged in sexual relationships with her.

Ms. Fine maintains that all these stories are false and ESPN's publication of them with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth constitutes libel and defamation. Her claims could depend on whether she was a public figure at the time of disclosure. Public figures do not enjoy the same level of privacy in their personal lives and carry higher burdens of proof when bringing defamation suits.

Ms. Fine was an active member of the Syracuse community, raising money for various charities that sought her out, especially child-related charities. She seeks damages for her damaged reputation, emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, permanent impairment of employability and related losses.

The First Amendment does not protect the "right" to post anonymous comments online that defame the reputations of others. Libelous statements posted in Internet forums can come back to bite those who post them. In most cases, posters will not be able to conceal their identities once the gears of litigation start grinding. A jury in Texas recently awarded $13.78 million to a couple who were targeted by online posters -- one of the highest verdicts ever recorded in Texas for an Internet defamation case.

In 2008, Shannon Coyel sought to divorce her husband and gain custody of her two children. She accused her husband of being a sexual pervert and claimed he had abused their daughter. Mark Lesher, an attorney, and his wife tried to help her with her divorce. The Coyels reconciled, however, and Mrs. Coyel then accused the Leshers and their ranch hand of sexual assault. Moreover, she claimed she had only reported an incident of abuse by her husband against her daughter because the Leshers had drugged her with pills.

The Leshers were indicted as a result of Mrs. Coyel's sexual assault accusation. They also came under attack on Topix.com with some 25,000 comments, many anonymous, posted about them. They were called molesters, murderers, sexual deviants and drug dealers, and were accused of encouraging pedophilia. The Leshers said the attacks were so vicious, they had to move out of their town and Mrs. Lesher lost her business, a day spa. Mr. Lesher lost substantial business as well.

The Leshers were tried and acquitted on Coyel's sexual assault claim. They then brought a libel suit against those who had posted the comments on Topix.com, naming the 178 pseudonyms associated with the comments they considered the most damaging and promptly issuing subpoenas to uncover the posters' identities. Topix moved to quash the subpoena as overly broad and sought a protective order to withhold the identities of those sued. A California court granted the motion to "protect the identities of the anonymous Internet posters," but permitted the Leshers to obtain their IP (Internet Protocol) addresses.

The IP addresses led the Leshers to the Coyel salvage yard. The Leshers amended their petition to focus on Mr. Coyel, his business, his brother, two of his employees, and Mrs. Coyel. The case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict totaling $13.78 million against Mr. and Mrs. Coyel and one of the salvage yard employees for mental anguish, loss of reputation, and Mrs. Coyel's loss of her business.

It is not unusual for individuals to suffer defamation, threats, having their home addresses posted, and other such attacks, through the anonymity of the Internet. Website owners are generally not required to moderate inflammatory posts and often will refuse to remove damaging content. There is a common misconception that "free speech" includes the right to post defamatory material on the Internet anonymously. This case should serve as a wake-up call to those who would attack others online.

A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed a defamation case against Barbara Walters brought by a woman claiming to be the former lesbian lover of Walters' daughter. In Walters autobiography, Audition: A Memoir, she refers to the woman, Nancy Shay, by first name only in a two-sentence statement. Walters wrote that "Nancy" was kicked out of high school for "bad behavior" after being "found in a nearby town high on God-knows-what" with Walters' daughter. Shay did not deny being suspended from school but claimed the statements were defamatory because they falsely portrayed her as a user of illicit drugs. The court found the allegations were insufficient to state a claim for defamation and dismissed the case.

In Massachusetts, as in Virginia and every other state, there can be no defamation liability without "fault" on behalf of the defendant. For private plaintiffs (as opposed to public figures), this requires (at a minimum) an allegation that the defendant acted negligently with respect to determining the truth. Moreover, a statement is incapable of defamatory meaning unless it would tend to hold the plaintiff up to scorn, hatred, ridicule or contempt "in the minds of any considerable and respectable segment in the community." In other words, a statement will not be considered defamatory if only a very small group of persons would view it as derogatory.

In her brief, Shay argued that Walters was at fault for making a false statement as to the reason for her suspension and that the statement damaged her reputation amongst the former faculty and students of the high school from which she was suspended. Alternatively, Shay suggested that, even if the statement that she was expelled for "bad behavior" was true, the allusion to drug use was made maliciously.

The court found that Shay failed to make any showing of fault beyond her self-serving and conclusory allegations. It found further that the segment of the population who would read the statements in Walters' book and draw negative inferences from them about Shay was too small to sustain a finding of defamatory meaning. Those few people who would recognize the reference to "Nancy" in Audition as alluding to Shay would likely also know the real circumstances of the situation and would not have their opinions of Shay influenced by the memoir, the court found.

Professional Timothy B. Hanks is a professional tax preparer who took offense at a television segment aired by WAVY Channel 10 in the Hampton Roads area that promised to inform viewers "how to avoid unscrupulous tax preparers," then proceeded to tell a story involving an admitted mistake made by his company, Reliable Tax & Financial Services. Hanks sued the station for libel, libel per se, and libel per quod, seeking five million dollars in damages. Judge Doumar (Norfolk) rejected all three theories and, last month, dismissed the entire case with prejudice.

Libel per se and libel per quod are variations of a defamation cause of action. Under Virginia law, a claim for libel per se may exist for certain categories of defamatory statements deemed serious enough to warrant presumed damages. This includes statements such as those accusing a plaintiff of committing a crime involving "moral turpitude," of being infected with a contagious disease, or, more commonly, of being unfit to perform the duties of his profession. Libel per quod, on the other hand, refers to statements the defamatory nature of which is not readily apparent, but which are understood by the recipient to be of a defamatory nature in light of extrinsic facts known by that person.

Hanks claimed the "unscrupulous" remark constituted defamation per se in that it imputed to him "an unfitness to perform the duties of office or employment for profit, a lack of integrity in the discharge of duties of such office, and the commission of a criminal offense." The court disagreed for several reasons, holding that the statements (1) are not "of or concerning" Hanks, (2) are not capable of defamatory construction, and (3) are constitutionally-protected opinion. The court also found that Hanks failed to sufficiently plead actual malice or special damages.

First, the court pointed out that Hanks failed to explain why he was suing personally, rather than Reliable Tax, the company mentioned in the broadcast. Rather than dismiss the case for lack of standing, however, the court took judicial notice of the fact that Hanks was the president of Reliable Tax and proceeded to address the merits.

The court found that Hanks failed to show that the statement about "unscrupulous tax preparers" as a class was directed at him. Hanks never pleaded any facts to show how he was personally affected by this story or that it would be plausible for viewers to know that the story was about Hanks merely from the reference to tax preparers as a class.

The court also ruled that the term "unscrupulous" was not of a defamatory nature in that it was broad, unfocused, and constituted wholly subjective opinion. It did not, as Hanks argued, imply criminal behavior.

Consumer review sites continue to grow in popularity. Sites like Angie's List, Avvo, and Yelp (to name but a few) allow people to post their experiences with lawyers, doctors, hairdressers, restaurants, roofers, and just about anyone else, and assign a rating to the service provider they used. When used honestly, these sites can provide a benefit to consumers. But they can also provide a mechanism for bogus reviews intended to maliciously destroy a business's reputation. Here in Virginia, negative reviews are often the subject of defamation lawsuits.

In general, the First Amendment protects expressions of opinions on these sites. All legitimate reviews, both positive and negative, can help consumers come to well-informed conclusions. Negative reviews, however, cross the line if they include false statements of fact. Consumers are free to express unfavorable opinions regarding their experiences with a service provider, but the First Amendment does not allow them to defame the service provider by posting false information.

A Texas lawyer recently filed a defamation action, claiming that a negative review that he received on Citysearch.com was not only derogatory but false and was the result of a conspiracy to defame him, evidently in retaliation for his decision to fire a paralegal at his law firm. Attorney Michael Weston sued his former paralegal and the man believed to be her husband.

Weston says in his complaint that he fired the paralegal for insubordination on November 6, 2010, after she had been on the job less than a month. A couple of weeks later, he claims, the paralegal and/or her husband wrote a review on Citysearch.com, claiming to be former clients of the firm and stating that they had "found him to be condescending to my situation and cold in demeanor," adding that "if you are looking for a factory that turns out debt settlements then this attorney is for you."

Weston claims in his lawsuit that the statements were false in that neither his paralegal nor husband had ever been clients of his law firm. He contends that he lost business because of the review, and he is seeking lost profits of $250,000 and reputational damages of $1 million.

It doesn't take a defamation expert to see the flaws in the $2 million libel lawsuit filed this week by Redskins owner Dan Snyder against the Washington City Paper. Mr. Snyder took offense at an article titled, "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder: From A to Z (for Zorn), an Encyclopedia of the Owner's Many Failings," which contains a detailed list of reasons the author considered him a bad owner. Mr. Snyder also disapproved of an image of him, published with the article in question, on which someone had doodled devil horns and a mustache, which Mr. Snyder deemed "an anti-Semitic caricature of himself" which "forced" him to file the lawsuit. Talk about thin skin.

First of all, how ironic is it that Mr. Snyder claims he was forced to bring this lawsuit to protect his reputation and good name, and yet by virtue of suing the newspaper, he has stoked the interest of the media and triggered widespread public scrutiny into his prior activities, vastly increasing the number of people who will seek out and read The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder? Personally, I'm not a regular reader of the Washington City Paper and would never have known about the alleged defamatory statements had Mr. Snyder not called my attention to them by suing the paper. Mr. Snyder and his lawyers have alerted the otherwise complacent populace to a long list of alleged bad acts by the Redskins owner. Even if he wins the case, will he really have done himself and his reputation any favors by suing an outspoken critic?

But he won't win. As I explained in an earlier blog post, not just any hurtful or offensive comment will constitute libel or slander upon which a plaintiff could successfully sue for millions of dollars. Defamation liability requires the publication of a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff's reputation. Statements of opinion, regardless of how unfavorable the opinion, are not actionable. Thus, calling Mr. Snyder a failure, likening him to the devil, and referring to the "stain" he supposedly left on the Redskins are all constitutionally protected as free speech.

Snyder's lawyers are well aware of that restriction, and therefore focus their allegations on certain statements in the article that could be more easily interpreted as factual allegations. Namely, that "Dan Snyder...got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications;" that he caused Agent Orange to be used to destroy trees "protected by the National Park Service" on "federally protected lands;" that Mr. Snyder bragged that his wealth came from diabetes and cancer victims; and that Mr. Snyder was "tossed off' the Six Flags' board of directors. According to Huffington Post reporter Jason Linkins, these allegations are all demonstrably true or were intended as metaphors with substantial truth to them. If the statements are true, they are not defamatory.

Mr. Snyder has an even higher hurdle to climb if we wants to recover damages against the Washington City Paper: as a widely known public figure, Mr. Snyder will need to prove not only that the article contained false statements, but that the Washington City Paper acted with "constitutional malice": that it knew the statements were false or published the statements with reckless disregard of whether the statements were true or false.

If he fails to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that the newspaper published false factual statements (not just opinions) about him, and that they did so with malice, he will lose the case. And while losing the case would not necessarily mean that the statements about Mr. Snyder's alleged activities are true, what will public perception be?

The tort of defamation is widely misunderstood. Social media outlets like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, which allow easy publication and dissemination of information to a wide audience, are leading to a rise in defamation lawsuits in Virginia and around the country. To be insulted by another, especially when it happens in a public forum, can be hurtful and embarrassing. Whether the insult constitutes actionable defamation under Virginia law, however, or whether it is sufficient to satisfy Virginia's "insulting words" statute, can present some complicated issues, often implicating the United States Constitution. Relevant considerations for any lawyer examining a defamation claim include the type and context of the speech, the identity of the speaker, the identity of the plaintiff, and the existence of qualified immunity or other defenses.

In Virginia, defamation includes both libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). There is no need for clever mnemonic devices to distinguish libel from slander, because Virginia law makes no meaningful distinction between the two and speaks only of the merged tort of defamation. The essence of any defamation claim is that a defendant published a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff's reputation. While it is common to recite that "truth is a defense," that is not technically true, as falsity is a required element of the plaintiff's proof.

Proof of several elements is required. The defendant must know that the statement was false or must have lacked a reasonable basis for believing it to be true. Defamatory words that cause prejudice to a person in her profession are actionable as defamation "per se," meaning that it is not necessary to prove actual injury to reputation. Expressions of opinion, however, are constitutionally protected as free speech. Therefore, mere statements of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit.

The "publication" requirement means that the remarks were heard by a third party who understood the remarks as referring to the plaintiff in a defamatory sense. This is a fairly easy standard to meet (assuming a defamatory statement), as even accidental publication will suffice.

The Constitution plays two parts in the defamation analysis. First, it gives higher protection to those who speak on matters of public concern or about public figures. When an ordinary person brings a defamation claim that concerns a statement of no public concern, he only needs to prove the requisite elements by a preponderance of the evidence. When the plaintiff is a public figure (e.g., a celebrity or public officeholder), or when the statement at issue was one of public concern, then the bar is raised. The plaintiff would then need to prove, by "clear and convincing" evidence, that the defendant acted with actual malice. A defendant acted with actual malice if he knew the statement to be false or recklessly failed to verify the claim. "Clear and convincing" evidence is difficult to define but is a higher level of proof than a mere "preponderance." (You can think of it as requiring 75% certainty rather than 51% certainty, though that is not the legal definition).

The second constitutional requirement is that punitive damages may only be awarded upon the same clear and convincing finding of actual malice regardless of who the plaintiff is or if the statement was one of public concern.

The law of libel and slander is far too complicated to discuss in this small space. Consult an attorney if you have been the subject of defamatory speech, especially if your business or profession is being harmed as a result.