What It Takes to Allege “Actual Malice” in #TheyLied Libel-by-Accusation-of-Sexual-Assault Claims
The factual allegations from an earlier iteration of the case:
Tallman … lives in the city of Boardman, Oregon, in Morrow County. He owns and operates a coffee shop in Boardman called, “The Farmer’s Cup.” … Miller … grew up in Boardman. In approximately April 2019, she began working at The Farmer’s Cup, as a server. She was 16 years old. Tallman hired Miller and was her supervisor. Shortly after she began working for Tallman, Miller [alleged that she] “experienced what [she] now know[s] to be highly inappropriate behaviors from a 40-year-old man toward a 16-year-old girl.” She describes that [alleged] behavior in detail in her declaration.
She adds that “Tallman would only engage in these behaviors when there wasn’t another adult present” and that she “did not feel safe working with Tallman.” She also witnessed a friend and co-worker experience similar behavior from Tallman. In August 2019, Miller and her friend were at sports practice. They discussed Tallman’s behavior and were overheard by their coach, who was a mandatory reporter under Oregon law. The coach reported what he had heard to the Boardman Police Department. Shortly thereafter, Miller, accompanied by her parents, was interviewed by the Boardman Police, who prepared a report. No charges were ever brought against Tallman.
Tallman sued for defamation, and the district court held that, because he had been a candidate for local elected office, he was a public figure. He could thus prevail in his defamation case only if he could show “actual malice” on Miller’s part, which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood.
From Magistrate Judge Andrew Hallman’s Findings and Recommendation yesterday in Tallman v. Miller (D. Ore.):
Miller made statements of objective fact that she was sexually assaulted by Tallman, which Tallman now asserts were provably false and that Miller knew they were false. Based on this evidence, there are only two plausible inferences that can be drawn from the allegations in the complaint: Miller is lying about the alleged abuse, or she is not. If she is lying, she will have exhibited actual malice, a standard higher than negligence….
Tallman has presented substantial evidence of actual malice. This Court is presented with conflicting evidence as to whether Tallman sexually assaulted Miller. But because this is an anti-SLAPP motion, it is required to adopt the version of events most favorable to Tallman, so long as those facts are supported by substantial evidence.
Here, Tallman has presented substantial evidence that Miller’s allegations of sexual assault are “f
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
