Calling Someone “White Supremacist” in Online Debate Is Opinion …
This is the standard view under American defamation law; it had in the past been applied to allegations of Communism, Socialism, etc., but more recently has often been applied to allegations of racism, sexism, white supremacy, etc. Here’s an excerpt from Murphy v. Rosen, released yesterday by the Connecticut Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Andrew McDonald:
The use of derogatory remarks on social media and elsewhere has become commonplace in political discourse, with words and phrases taking on different meanings depending on the context in which the expression is made, the intentions of the speaker, and the viewpoint of the audience…. The primary issue on appeal is whether the characterization of the plaintiff as a “white supremacist” is, standing alone, an actionable fact constituting defamation per se.
We conclude that, although calling someone a “white supremacist” or a “racist” is a serious accusation, the meanings of these terms are inherently subjective. As a result, we join numerous other jurisdictions that have concluded that these terms are not objectively verifiable and do not, without more, imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts….
The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. In 2020, Jeff Manville, the first selectman of the town of Southbury, Edward B. St. John, the first selectman of the town of Middlebury, and Joshua Smith, the superintendent of the Southbury and Middlebury school system, posted a joint statement on Southbury’s Facebook page. The statement was written in response to the killing of George Floyd. Several community members, who are not parties to this litigation, expressed disappointment with the content of the statement via comments on the post.
Certain community members claimed that the message in the statement was that “All Lives Matter” instead of that “Black Lives Matter.” This led to a heated debate among community members in the comments section of the post. Many of the comments were stridently political and emotionally charged. Throughout the ensuing dialogue, the plaintiff and the defendant separately responded to other community members’ comments. Eventually, another member of the public, who is not a party to this litigation, posted that the member’s “daughters have had people call them the [N-word]” and advocated for community change.
The plaintiff responded to that member, stating: “Provide names, dates, and location of the behavior please.” The member replied: “[A]nd you are?” When the member refused to provide details, the plaintiff posted: “Again, names, times, and location of racial slurs. You went into a PUBLIC FORUM and made accusations of racism. I asked for you to name people who are doing it. You deflect and refuse to answer the question. You then call this harassment. You have no understanding of the word. Since you refuse to document your accusations, I am calling your comment BS.” In response to the “and you are” question directed to the plaintiff, the defendant commented, “[the plaintiff is] a troll and a [w]hite [s]upremacist.”
The plaintiff responded: “So now I am a [w]hite [s]upremacist? How is that? I want specifics. This is exactly what I mean by the behavior of you nasty hate filled Democrats. You make up whatever you have to. PS, I am half Jewish. Wikipedia definition. White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. I can say for sure that I have many friends who are [B]lack and Latino (including my adopted mother and brother) who are better human beings than you ever will be.” The defendant replied to the plaintiff’s post, stating: “[T]he burden of proof that you are not a [w]hite [s]upremacist is on you. I’ve seen many examples, especially during the election season. Feel free to prove otherwise.” …
In the present case, whether the trial court properly granted the defendant’s special motion to dismiss turns on whether the term “white supremacist” conveys an objective fact or whether it is a nonactionable opinion. An und
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.
