The Virginia Defamation Law Blog

Panamanian lawyer Juan Carlos Noriega has brought a defamation suit in the District of Columbia against the Huffington Post for falsely attributing to him an "offensive" article he claims he had nothing to do with. The article, entitled "The Primacy of the Rule of Law," (which has since been removed from the site) concerned a "fake vaccination program" that the Central Intelligence Agency ran in order to gather information on Osama Bin Laden. The CIA relied on Dr. Shakeel Afridi to run the vaccination program, and when he was arrested, the United States government called for his release.

The article claimed that the United States' outrage over Dr. Afridi's arrest was inconsistent with every nation's basic commitment to the rule of law, and that the United States' demand that Afridi be released showed a disregard for Pakistan's democracy and jurisprudence. The article suggested that Afridi had violated the Hippocratic Oath and that, because of the fake campaign, Pakistani parents had become skeptical of vaccinations and were refusing to immunize their children. The article asserted that thousands of innocent Pakistani children may be crippled for life with polio or die from hepatitis because of the vaccination scheme. A link to the article revealed a short biography and picture of Noriega and listed him as one of "HuffPost's signature line up of contributors."

Noriega claims he has never written anything for the Huffington Post. He says he's never even submitted a comment on the site or created an account. According to the complaint, The Huffington Post did not contact Noriega before publishing the article, and when Noriega's counsel informed the Huffington Post that he had been a victim of identity theft and asked it to remove the article, the Huffington Post did not respond. Noriega asserts that the Huffington Post maliciously and negligently published the article and attributed to him "highly offensive and defamatory beliefs" concerning terrorism, Pakistan, bin Laden, the U.S. government and the CIA that he does not hold.

Noriega contends that the article has damaged his personal and business reputation, has caused him serious emotional distress, embarrassment and personal humiliation and has jeopardized his immigration status. The complaint asks for $3 million in damages, a retraction, and an investigation into the identity theft. The court is going to have to decide whether falsely attributing certain controversial beliefs to a person can be considered defamatory as a matter of law.

Former Georgia State Director for Rural Development, Shirley Sherrod, filed a defamation action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against bloggers Andrew Breitbart and Larry O'Connor based on a blog post allegedly portraying her as racist. The court denied defendants' special motion to dismiss under D.C.'s anti-SLAPP Act. Defendants appealed, and the case is now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

The district court cited three reasons for its dismissal. First, it found that entertaining defendants' motion would require retroactive application of the anti-SLAPP statute as Sherrod filed her complaint on February 11, 2011 and the D.C. anti-SLAPP Act did not become effective until March 31, 2011. Typically, only statutes that are purely procedural in nature can be applied retroactively, and the court held that the Act is substantive (or has substantive consequences). Defendants argue that whether the statute only applies to actions filed after its effective date is an issue of first impression, and summary disposition of a case of first impression involving a newly enacted statue that protects important First Amendment rights is not appropriate.

The district court found that even if the statute were purely procedural, the Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law, bars its application in federal court. Finally, the district court held that even if defendants could show that the statute is both retroactive and applicable in federal court, the plain language of the statute bars the motion to dismiss--the statute provides that a party may file a special motion to dismiss within 45 days after service of the claim, and here, the motion was filed more than two weeks after the 45 days had passed.

Another issue on appeal will be whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider the appeal as a collateral order. In general, courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments, but the collateral order doctrine allows parties to appeal a narrow class of decisions that resolve important questions. Citing case law, defendants contend that the First, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have considered this issue and, of five substantive opinions, four hold that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss is immediately appealable. Further, defendants argue that the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit have applied the collateral order doctrine where a defendant seeks an appeal to vindicate rights of high value such as ones embodied in the Constitution. Defendants contend that because the case involves constitutionally protected free speech regarding public figures and issues of public importance, the court should exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.

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.

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.

Climate change scientist Dr. Michael Mann is threatening legal action against the National Review magazine for a blog post that appeared in "The Corner" section of its online publication. In the article, journalist Mark Steyn quoted writer Rand Simberg's observation that Dr. Mann "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data..." Mr. Steyn went on to call Mann "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey stick' graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus."

In a demand letter to the National Review, Dr. Mann's attorney, John Williams, contends that Mr. Steyn's statements amount to accusations of academic fraud and constitute defamation per se. He argues that the statements were false and were made with the knowledge that they were false. He cites several inquiries into his research which concluded that he has not engaged in academic fraud as proof that Mr. Steyn's statements are false. Dr. Mann demands that the National Review retract the article and apologize or face legal action.

Dr. Mann may have a valid complaint, but he is going to have his work cut out for him. Dr. Mann is a well-known, much published and often quoted figure in the climate change debate. In fact, Dr. Mann has written a book on the climate change controversy. Courts have held that scientists who inject themselves into public controversies over scientific and political debates are public figures. As a public figure, Dr. Mann would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the National Review published a provably false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

His lawyers are also going to have to convince a judge that the use of the term "fraudulent," in the context of the article, should be treated as an assertion of fact rather than subjective opinion. The court could plausibly rule either way on this issue. Mr. Steyn's piece was commentary on a highly debatable topic - climate change - and a controversial graph - the "hockey stick" graph which depicts changes in the Earth's temperature from the year 1000 onward. In an effort to encourage the free exchange of ideas, courts have allowed the press much leeway when writing about public controversies, and the difference of opinion over the science behind climate change is the type of debate that the First Amendment protects. Great scientific minds can reasonably disagree where the climate change debate is concerned.

While the court might indeed find that the term was used to suggest Dr. Mann engaged in academic fraud, it might conceivably find instead that the statement would more reasonably be interpreted as a protected expression of opinion. Moreover, if the court considers the "fraudulent" characterization to be rhetorical hyperbole, rather than an assertion of literal fact, it will dismiss the claim.

It is rarely easy for a public figure to prevail in a defamation case, especially when the statements at issue relate to matters of public concern. At a minimum, if Dr. Mann decides to file suit, it will at least bring more attention to the climate-change debate.

In Virginia, defamation liability can be based on a statement that is literally true, if the true meaning of the statement arises from reasonable inferences attributable to it rather than the actual words used. Some jurisdictions refuse to recognize this "defamation by implication" or "implied defamation" theory, but on August 9, 2012, the Southern District of New York issued an opinion demonstrating that New York is among the states that recognize the doctrine.

Peter Paul Biro is in the business of art restoration and authentication and is well known in the art world for having developed scientific approaches to art authentication through fingerprint analysis. In July 2011, The New Yorker published an article titled "The Mark of a Masterpiece: The man who keeps finding famous fingerprints on uncelebrated works of art." (Note: a full copy of the article is attached to the opinion). Biro sued the magazine, investigative journalist David Grann, and others for defamation, claiming that various passages in the article damaged his reputation to the tune of two million dollars.

In Biro v. Condé Nast, the court adopted the Fourth Circuit's approach to defamatory implication claims, holding that a plaintiff must make an "especially rigorous showing" that (1) the language may be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, and (2) the author intended or endorses the inference. Where an implication arises due to the omission rather than the expression of facts, the court will examine whether the omission would materially change the alleged implication.

On the other side of the coin, the court noted that if a statement is substantially true according to the understanding of the average reader, it will generally not be deemed defamatory. For example, the article stated that Biro "pioneered a radical approach to authenticating pictures." Biro claimed this statement was defamatory because he says there is nothing "radical" about fingerprints. Biro characterized the use of fingerprint analysis in art authentication as an "emerging field." The court found that the truth according to Biro would not have a different effect on the mind of the reader than the idea that fingerprint authentication is "radical." The court therefore dismissed those claims based on substantially true statements.

On the topic of fact vs. opinion, the court wrote that while expressions of opinion are generally not actionable as defamation, a statement of opinion that is based on undisclosed facts might be actionable because a reader may reasonably infer that the writer knows certain facts which support the opinion. For example, statements alleging that Biro had been caught in lies and was a "phony" suggest facts undisclosed to the reader, the court found. The court declined to dismiss claims based on these statements.

In the final analysis, just four of the original 24 counts survived the motion to dismiss.

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.

Christian minister and hard-rocker Bradlee Dean and his non-profit foundation, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International (YCR), brought a defamation suit against liberal talk show host and commentator Rachel Maddow for comments Maddow made on The Rachel Maddow Show. Maddow is hitting back hard, filing a motion to dismiss under the District of Columbia's relatively new anti-SLAPP Act. If Maddow's motion is successful, Dean's defamation case will not only be dismissed with prejudice, but Maddow will be entitled to recovery of her attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges that Maddow disparaged Dean's physical appearance, first name, profession, and standing in the community and represented that he and YCR advocate the execution of homosexuals. In her commentary (excerpted below), Maddow mentioned that Dean denied having called for the execution of homosexuals, but Dean and YCR contend that Maddow did so begrudgingly and in a way that suggested their denial was disingenuous.

Dean charges Maddow with referring to him as a "bloodthirsty" individual calling for the "upping of the bloodshed in America's culture wars," and accusing him of advocating the use of foreign enemies against America because Christians "aren't doing the job by killing gays and lesbians." According to the plaintiffs, Maddow's comments proliferated in the media and led to Dean receiving Internet death threats from gay activists. The plaintiffs contend that Maddow made these comments as a liberal member of the media and lesbian activist in order to harm the presidential campaign of Congresswoman Michelle Bachman to whom Maddow linked Mr. Dean and YCR on several occasions.

Maddow has moved to dismiss the case under D.C.'s Anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. The D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 is designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits aimed at chilling the exercise of free speech rights. Virginia does not have an anti-SLAPP statute, and the law in D.C. did not become effective until March 31, 2011.

In her motion, Maddow gives three reasons why Mr. Dean's lawsuit should fail: 1) Maddow merely abridged and replayed original audio of Dean speaking on his own radio show; therefore, Dean cannot claim that he did not make the statements, and the fact that she abridged the original audio is irrelevant; 2) Maddow's commentary on Dean's statements is classic opinion and rhetorical hyperbole--fanciful language that may be exaggerated but is not grounds for a defamation suit; and 3) the fair comment privilege protects Maddow's commentary--the broadcasts featured Dean's actual statements and indicated the source of those statements such that viewers were free to make up their own minds regarding Maddow's remarks. Maddow contends that Dean's lawsuit is without merit and was instead filed to further his self-described mission to stop the "radical gay agenda." She asks the court to punish Dean for filing the suit by dismissing it and granting legal fees.

This is one to watch...stay tuned.

Shortly after being found "not guilty" of embezzlement by a Loudoun County jury, Deanne "Dee Dee" Hubbard, editor of the Middleburg Eccentric, has filed a defamation action against her chief antagonists, Jack J. Goehring, III, and his wife, Mary Kirk Goehring, in Loudoun County Circuit Court.

For over a decade, Deanne "Dee Dee" Hubbard managed Middleburg, Virginia properties co-owned by Jack Goehring and his wife. She also lived in one of their rental properties with her son and daughter-in-law and she and her daughter rented space in one of the Goehrings' commercial buildings. Ms. Hubbard was responsible for collecting rents from the Goehring properties. When Mr. Goehring discovered several rent checks had found their way into accounts Ms. Hubbard controlled, rather than into his accounts, he urged the Commonwealth Attorney's office to prosecute Hubbard. Ms. Hubbard claimed she'd mistakenly marked the checks for the wrong accounts and set the accounts right as soon as the error was discovered.

Ms. Hubbard was prosecuted on fourteen felony embezzlement charges but was acquitted of all charges. Now, she and several family members have sued Goehring and his wife for waging "a campaign of malicious prosecution, libel, slander, and defamation." The complaint paints Mr. Goehring as a vindictive man intent upon securing the charges against Ms. Hubbard and ratcheting up the surrounding publicity so as to defame and humiliate her. It accuses Goehring of filing an affidavit with the Middleburg Bank accusing Hubbard and her family members of identity theft, using his personal identifying information to obtain money, goods, services and other benefits without his authorization. The plaintiffs claim Goehring made false statements to law enforcement authorities that led to Hubbard's arrest, arranged to have a friend photograph Hubbard being taken into custody in handcuffs, and then helped the photographer find a buyer for the photos. Ultimately, the photos appeared on television, in the local paper and on the Internet.

The complaint recites a series of allegedly libelous statements Goehring made, on behalf of himself and his wife, to the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney handling the case. For example, in one email, Goehring reportedly called Hubbard a "crafty talented thief' and accused her of stealing $122,000 from him and his wife over a two-year period. In others, he allegedly called her a "master criminal/con artist" and accused the family of fraud, conspiracy, forgery, and embezzlement and referred to them as a "crime family."

The plaintiffs claim Goehring maliciously defamed them--and continues to do so--so he could evict them from his properties and obtain back rents from them to which he is not entitled. Each plaintiff seeks $500,000 in compensation as well as punitive damages for damage to reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and similar losses. Ms. Hubbard seeks an additional $500,000 against the Goehrings for malicious prosecution.

Virginia courts generally disfavor actions for malicious prosecution arising out of criminal proceedings so as to ensure appropriate criminal cases are brought without fear of civil reprisals. But the law allows such cases where the allegations were false and the individual instituted or cooperated in the criminal action maliciously, without probable cause, and the case terminated favorably for the plaintiff.

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.

Did an Associated Press reporter commit a foul against an NBA referee earlier this year by defaming him on Twitter during a league game? On March 14, 2011, National Basketball Association official Bill Spooner filed a federal defamation case against Associated Press sports beat reporter Jon Krawczynski for a brief item that Krawczynski wrote on his Twitter account that suggested Spooner was officiating a game dishonestly. During an NBA game between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Houston Rockets on January 24, 2011, Krawczynski tweeted (twote?) that Spooner told Minnesota coach Kurt Rambis after an allegedly bad call against a Minnesota player that Rambis would "get it back," and that Spooner went on to compensate for the incorrect call with a "make-up" call against Houston.

Spooner says that although he had a brief verbal exchange with Rambis about the foul call, he said nothing to the coach about giving anything back to the Timberwolves. His lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, says Krawczynski defamed him by telling Krawczynski's Twitter followers in effect that Spooner had engaged in a "form of game fixing." Spooner discusses in his complaint that the NBA was recently caught up in a controversy involving former ref Tim Donaghy, who pleaded guilty in federal court in 2007 after being accused of betting on games that he officiated.

The NBA itself discouraged the lawsuit, although it doesn't believe Spooner actually cheated either. According to a league spokesman, "We investigated the content of the tweet when it appeared, found it to be without substance, and informed Mr. Spooner that we considered the matter closed. We subsequently advised Mr. Spooner's lawyer that we did not think suing a journalist over an incorrect tweet would be productive."

The lawsuit raises plenty of interesting questions. First, is Spooner a "public figure" for libel purposes, or, alternatively, did Krawczynski's tweet implicate a matter of "public concern"? Spooner's defamation lawyers clearly don't want him to be treated as a public figure, cognizant of the higher hurdles public-figure plaintiffs must overcome in defamation actions. They make a point of stating in the complaint that Spooner "does not grant media interviews" and that he "eschews contact with the public." If the court treats Spooner as a public figure, the First Amendment would protect Krawczynski's statement unless it was made with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

Did Spooner suffer any harm from the tweet? The NBA says it disregarded the statement. Moreover, Twitter is an ephemeral medium, and Krawczynski had only about 2,000 followers at the time. Was there any measurable damage to Spooner's reputation? Some say the lawsuit is ill-advised due to the lack of harm. But you know what? If what Spooner alleges is true, this is a solid case. Defamation law does not require him to prove actual damage to his reputation. In circumstances such as this, where an allegedly false statement relates directly to a plaintiff's fitness to perform the duties of his job, harm to reputation is presumed and requires no proof.

It's not only basketball fans who will be watching to see how this one turns out.

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?

Worried about liability for statements made by others in an online forum hosted by your website? Provided you don't take an active role in editing the content posted by others, you shouldn't have to worry about defamation liability. The Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), found at 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It further provides that "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

In the still-pending case of Cornelius v. DeLuca, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, the plaintiffs, sellers of a dietary supplement called "Syntrax," sued various competitors for libel and tortious interference with business expectancies, and also sued the owners of bodybuilding.com--a website containing a forum for Internet discussion by the public--for supposedly assisting the other defendants post false and defamatory statements to the forum. In essence, the plaintiffs tried to get around the CDA by claiming the host of the forum wasn't a mere "provider" but an active participant in a conspiracy to post libelous, defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff's product. The court rejected the argument and dismissed the conspiracy count.

Under the CDA, while content providers cannot be held liable for the statements of others, they can be held liable for their own statements (which is why providers need to be careful not to edit others' statements, thereby arguably adopting the statement as their own). It is undoubtedly for this reason that the plaintiffs, realizing full well that the owners of bodybuilding.com did not make the statements at issue themselves, alleged that the owners conspired with the actual authors to allow the statements to be posted.

What the plaintiffs failed to do is present actual facts demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy. (To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege more than a mere formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action; he must allege facts that, if proven, would support the existence of the claimed cause of action.) The complaint at issue alleged no facts regarding the website owners' conduct other than the fact that they operated the message board, thereby "allowing" the allegedly defamatory statements to be published. No details were alleged concerning the details of the supposed conspiracy. The court held that, in light of the CDA, this was not enough.