Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a defamation claim against James Woods, holding his tweet questioning whether the plaintiff was a "Trump Nazi" was not an actionable false statement of fact under Ohio's innocent construction rule, as it was reasonably susceptible to an innocent meaning. The court also held that Woods waived his objection to insufficient service of process by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking a merits decision before the service deadline expired. The opinion analyzes the totality of the circumstances for defamation claims involving questions and social media context.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that Woods waived his service of process and personal jurisdiction defenses by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings and seeking a decision on the merits.
- Whether the district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings on the defamation claim by holding that Woods's tweet was not a false statement of fact as a matter of law under Ohio's innocent construction rule.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Woods waived his defenses because his conduct in filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking a merits decision gave Boulger a reasonable expectation that he would defend on the merits and caused the court to expend effort.
- The tweet is not actionable as defamation because, under Ohio's innocent construction rule, it is reasonably susceptible to an innocent meaning (a genuine question) and must be construed as such as a matter of law.
Key quotations
“Under the rule, 'a statement reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory and an innocent meaning must be construed, as a matter of law, to have an innocent meaning.'” (at 14)
“A mere insinuation is as actionable as a positive assertion, if the meaning is plain, and it has been held repeatedly that the putting of the words in the form of a question will in no w[ay] reduce the liability of the defendant.” (at 9–10)
“It is worth noting, however, that other circuits have opined that 'it is generally settled as a matter of defamation law that a question, however embarrassing or unpleasant to its subject, is not accusation.'” (at 10)
Factual background
On March 12, 2016, James Woods tweeted two photos—one of a woman giving a Nazi salute at a Trump rally and one of Portia Boulger—along with the question: 'So-called #Trump 'Nazi' is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?' The tweet was posted after another Twitter user falsely identified Boulger as the woman in the salute photo. Woods had over 350,000 followers. Boulger received hundreds of threatening messages and death threats. She sued Woods for defamation and invasion of privacy under Ohio law. Woods deleted the tweet after 11 days and issued clarifications.
Procedural history
The district court (S.D. Ohio) denied Woods's motion for summary judgment for lack of service (finding waiver) and granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the defamation claim. Boulger appealed the merits; Woods cross-appealed the jurisdictional ruling.