November 16, 2015
MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice Thompson(614) 340-9817
MThompson@OhioConstitution.org
Court: Ohioans Have Right to Criticize the Performance of Public
Officials
Maple Heights Mayor sued
to silence local bloggers for "defamation" and "emotional
distress," and violated their right to free speech in doing so
Columbus, OH - An Ohio Court
late Friday dismissed the case of a Cleveland-area Mayor who sued a local
family for "an amount in excess of $25,000" after they questioned his
job performance on their blog.
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law's victory on behalf of Bill and Lynde Brownlee, husband and wife, and their small-town news website, Maple Heights News, reaffirms the principle that citizens' criticisms of their government officials cannot be silenced when those officials file lawsuits for "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress," as Mayor Jeff Lansky had attempted here.
The ruling should provide
considerable help to both mainstream news outlets and alternative
politically-minded journalists and organizations.
The Brownlees had written a
short web article in the summer of 2014 questioning whether the Mayor had kept
all of his campaign promises, and further questioning his tax and spending
policies. The article strictly addressed the Mayor's policies, and did not use
insulting or harsh language.
In a 27-page Judgment Entry
affirming that Ohio public officials cannot prevail in lawsuits merely in
response to political speech, Judge Jose Villanueva of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas held as follows:
"Public discussion of public
officials is a fundamental principle of the American form of government, and
thus a primary purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage self-government
by permitting comment and criticism of those charged with its leadership."
"Expressions of opinion
are generally protected under Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as
a valid exercise of freedom of the press [and] an alleged defamatory statement
is not actionable if the statement constitutes political opinion speech
protected by absolute immunity.
The statements were obviously
opinion because "the Article is labeled 'editorial' and appeared in the
'editorial' section of a Website created for the avowed purpose of giving voice
to the residents of Maple Heights. . . labeling a statement as 'editorial' puts
readers on notice that the statements constitute the writer's opinions."
"A reasonable reader
would arguably understand the Article as an opinion piece critiquing events in
the city during the Mayor's current term . . . This type of statement is not
actionable in defamation."
As to the Mayor's
"emotional distress" claim, "the defendants' conduct in writing
and publishing an Article constituting political commentary does not rise to
the level of conduct necessary to prove [that claim].
The Court further explained
that Ohioans are free to share their own conclusions about whether a particular
official is ultimately responsible for certain bad outcomes, irrespective of
whether that conclusion is technically correct: "It is not unreasonable to
attribute actions or events that occur during a Mayor's administration directly
to the Mayor, despite the fact that others were also involved in carrying out
the actions or events . . . and the Brownlees reasonably believed that the
events and actions discussed in the Article could be attributed to Mayor
Lansky. . . Merely because Mayor Lansky disagrees with their interpretation of
the facts does not amount to actual malice."
"When voicing their
concerns over elected officials' performance, Ohioans should not be bullied
into silence for fear of an expensive lawsuit," explained Maurice
Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center. "The right to criticize
an elected official's poor performance is, as a necessary first step to those
officials' removal from office, the highest, best, and most
constitutionally-protected form of free speech. It should be encouraged, rather
than suppressed."
To emphasize the need to
deter such lawsuits in the future, the 1851 Center's defense of the Brownlees
includes a counterclaim to declare Mayor Lansky a "vexatious
litigator," and seeks sanctions against both the Mayor and his lawyer,
Brent English, who was recently arrested for frivolous litigation elsewhere.
The Court indicated that separate hearings would now be held on those matters.
One prominent undercurrent to
the case concerns whether political comments on citizen websites are entitled
to the same level of protection as mainstream newspaper, television, and radio
media. The Court stressed that under the Ohio Constitution, which is more
protective of free speech, "internet" speech is almost always likely
to be viewed as "opinion," and therefore immune from lawsuits for
defamation and emotional distress. The Ohio Constitution guarantees
"[e]very citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on
all subjects," and "no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the
liberty of speech, or of the press."
Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. If you support our efforts to advance liberty and limit government, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
No comments:
Post a Comment