A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District in Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an Ohio radio station in a defamation and false light invasion of privacy case involving a former candidate for judicial election. The Fifth District’s opinion in Christiansen v. WCLT et al. is linked here.
Shortly before the November 2008 general election, radio station WCLT (Newark, Ohio) aired and posted to its website a political editorial in which the station’s general manager expressed his opinion that two of three candidates were inappropriate for the position of Domestic Relations Court Judge. One of the two candidates quickly sought an ex parte temporary restraining order to enjoin the editorial from further distribution (which was later denied) and filed a defamation complaint. Later, because certain of the statements the plaintiff contended were defamatory were by her own admission literally true, the plaintiff amended her complaint to also allege a claim for false light invasion of privacy.
The statements in the editorial that the plaintiff challenged were these:
In July of 2007 a police report alleging assault was filed with the Newark Police Department against [the plaintiff]. In the report she is accused of striking a person in a courthouse elevator. She has also had several complaints concerning her behavior filed with the Ohio Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel.
The plaintiff admitted the statements were literally true, but claimed that the statements improperly created the inference that she had been charged with assault and disciplined by the Ohio Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel – neither of which had happened. (The Fifth District’s opinion includes the full text of the editorial.)
On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the radio station’s motion for summary judgment, finding that (1) the allegedly defamatory statements were not made with actual malice because the defendant believed them to be true (indeed, the plaintiff admitted they were literally true), (2) the statements were protected opinion, and (3) the statements could be construed as non-defamatory.
On appeal, the Fifth District, in a 2-1 decision, denied each of the plaintiff’s five assignments of error by the trial court. The court held that:
- The lower court had not committed error by finding the allegedly defamatory statements to be literally true.
- The lower court properly applied the “innocent construction” rule to the statements. This rule requires that when an allegedly defamatory statement is subject to two interpretations, one defamatory and one not, the court must apply the non-defamatory meaning.
- The trial court did not err by finding that the factual statements made in the editorial were true and the rest of the editorial was protected opinion.
- The trial court properly held that the statements were not made with actual malice – knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth – because the statements were literally true. Actual malice could not be inferred from the plaintiff’s evidence of common-law malice or personal animosity.
- The trial court properly distinguished the plaintiff’s defamation claim from her false light claim, as both causes of action require the plaintiff to prove actual malice. Since the court affirmed the finding that the statements were literally true, the plaintiff could not prove actual malice.
The appellate decision represents an important victory affirming the right of news organizations and others to engage in political speech during election campaigns.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Education
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Search Warrants
- Access to Court Dockets
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services