Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Defamation Lawsuit Against Actor James Woods

from the an-obvious-conclusion,-but-one-that-needed-to-be-reached-anyway dept

James Woods -- saved from a defamation lawsuit by a question mark -- has just had his dismissal affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever schadenfreude there was to be enjoyed by seeing Woods hoisted on his own litigious petard was swiftly dispelled by the ridiculousness of the lawsuit, which posited that Woods' careless question tying the plaintiff to [gasp!] Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign rose to the level of actual defamation. All we can hope is Woods handles this victory with a bit of grace, rather than gloating over his opponent's death, should she unfortunately precede him to the Great Beyond.

The lower court did take a couple of shots at Woods during its dismissal of the suit, pointing out he was as uncooperative as possible when the plaintiff, Portia Boulger, tried to serve him. Boulger was offended by Woods' tweet that portrayed her as a Bernie plant trying to sabotage Trump's impeccable reputation by flinging Nazi salutes during one of his rallies. Here's a quick summary of the supposed defamation, taken from the appeals court decision [PDF]:

On March 12, 2016, Twitter user @voxday posted the Nazi salute photograph, together with a photograph of Portia Boulger and a caption identifying Boulger as an “Organizer (Women for Bernie).” (Def. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings, R. 7, PageID 61.) The two photographs and caption were accompanied by the (false) statement, “The ‘Trump Nazi’ is Portia Boulger, who runs the Women for Bernie Sanders Twitter account. It’s another media plant.” (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Woods tweeted the same two pictures, along with a short biography of Boulger, and added: “So-called #Trump ‘Nazi’ is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?” (Comp., R. 1, PageID 3.) At the time, Woods had more than 350,000 followers on Twitter.

After being notified by Boulger's lawyer that she was seeking to sue him, Woods issued a retraction and an apology. Boulger argued the damage had already been done. She had been the recipient of several unpleasant communications from Woods' followers, which apparently included death threats.

The Appeals Court also takes a shot at Woods for dodging service from Boulger, pointing out the ridiculousness of him attempting to dismiss a lawsuit he claimed he hadn't been properly served with yet.

As the district court noted, although Woods raised the defenses of insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction in his answer, he immediately filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in which the defenses were not included. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed several months early—because Woods had not yet been served—and necessarily sought a decision on the merits. Woods’s motion was thus “inconsistent with the idea that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant[].”

[...]

The filing of the motion for judgment on the pleadings therefore created a reasonable expectation that Woods would defend the suit on the merits. Any other holding would create a perverse outcome. One can imagine a litigant asking the court to proceed on the merits, and then, only if the court’s decision is unfavorable, seeking to re-assert jurisdictional defenses.

The decision then spends several pages diving into the thick weeds of Ohio defamation law. There's a four-prong test applied at the state level to determine whether or not a question is a "statement of fact." After a lot of discussion, the court finally gets to the point: the question mark -- coupled with the actor's opinionated Twitter feed -- makes it clear Woods was asking followers to make that call themselves, rather than directing them to arrive at a foregone conclusion. That many of them skipped the whole "decide for yourself" stage isn't Woods' fault, nor does it turn a question into a libelous statement of fact.

Here, the tweet at issue is reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory meaning—that Woods was asserting Boulger was the woman giving the Nazi salute—and an innocent meaning—that Woods was merely asking his followers a question. Because Woods’s tweet could reasonably be read to have an innocent meaning, under the innocent construction rule the tweet, as a matter of law, is not actionable.

There's also the matter of context. As the court sees it, the opinionated Woods could get away with posing a question like this. The New York Times perhaps not so much.

A review of Wood’s Twitter feed from March 12, 2016, shows that although he posted news articles, his tweets were frequently accompanied by his own colorful commentary. [...] These tweets illustrate that a reasonable reader of Woods’s tweets on March 12, 2016, likely knew that he made frequent use of sarcasm, exaggeration, and hyperbole—characteristics more likely seen in an opinion, rather than a statement of fact. See Scott, 496 N.E.2d at 708. Thus, the general context could lead a reasonable reader to believe the tweet at issue was not a statement of fact.

[...]

Twitter is a medium for users to express both opinions and disseminate news. For example, a Twitter user who tweets his or her thoughts on various celebrities is an account that is more analogous to an editorial section of a newspaper. Cf. Vail, 649 N.E.2d at 185–86 (finding that a column that appeared on the Forum page of the newspaper and titled “Commentary” gave a reader the message that the column would convey the personal opinion of the writer, as distinguished from a news story). But the Twitter account of an online news source, such as the New York Times, is not meaningfully distinguishable from a hard copy news story. Consequently, it is clear that Twitter can be used to disseminate both factual accounts and assertions, as well as commentary and opinion.

This breakdown of Twitter seems elementary and even a bit unnecessary, but the court is reminding readers (and plaintiffs) that context matters. It always does. Unfortunately, many plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits want the court to strip commentary of its context to make it easier for them to secure a victory. Fortunately, our courts have generally been very protective of speech and extremely hesitant to hand down rulings that could restrict the free exchange of commentary and opinion. It's unfortunate Woods' followers decided his somewhat disingenuous question granted them permission to harass and threaten Boulger. But those disgusting responses are the responsibility of the disgusting people making them. The court made the right call, ensuring Twitter in all its greatness and awfulness remains a freewheeling, often-horrifying marketplace of ideas.

Filed Under: 6th circuit, anti-slapp, defamation, free speech, james woods, portia boulger


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2019 @ 3:47pm

    So he shouldn't have a problem with this...

    James Woods....censorious asshat?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 12 Mar 2019 @ 4:17pm

    Woods, grace? Bwahahaha!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bobvious, 12 Mar 2019 @ 4:18pm

    He decided to follow previous advice: "You gotta lose yourself in the moment, man!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 12 Mar 2019 @ 4:30pm

    Was this a "high" court?

    Some people say that Woods is so frequently coked out of his mind that you can't take seriously anything he might say or "Tweet".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2019 @ 5:57pm

    Fair

    I think it's fair to say, that in my humble opinion, Woods is an asshole who has likely done copious amounts of cocaine. While setting puppies on fire.
    I could be wrong that's just my opinion. But I can have it thanks to 230.

    Why has Woods never issued a clear denial regarding his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair? People need to know!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2019 @ 6:44pm

      Re: Fair

      You don't need Section 230 to have that opinion. Under distributor liability, the website would have to first be put on notice and then not take down the claim, plus the person filing the takedown would have to agree to waive service of a lawsuit, and give their full legal name, one reason the pirates never file DMCA counter-notifications.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2019 @ 7:02pm

        Re: Re: Fair

        plus the person filing the takedown would have to agree to waive service of a lawsuit, and give their full legal name,

        AC says what?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Mar 2019 @ 1:09am

      Re: Fair

      "But I can have it thanks to 230."

      You can have it anyway. Section 230 just means that Woods would have to go after you directly for stating that rather than holding Techdirt responsible.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 13 Mar 2019 @ 8:57am

      Re: Fair

      I could be wrong that's just my opinion. But I can have it thanks to 230.

      The relevant number here isn't 230, it's 1.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2019 @ 6:42pm

    "How DARE you get a happy ending! How DARE YOU!" - Hades, Kingdom Hearts II

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Mar 2019 @ 7:21pm

    So my question is...
    Is my twitter account filled with enough vitriol and outlandish things so I can imply James Woods is a cocaine addict without him filing a defamation suit against me & prevailing?

    Or do I need to up my game to the next level of accusing people of sleeping with kids while ignoring while I was enjoying my seniors discount at Denny's I was dating a 16 yr old?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zof (profile), 13 Mar 2019 @ 3:11am

    So free speech won. Bummer for the folks that attack it I guess. It's amazing to me who the censors are now. They are easy to spot. The ones trying to pretend a hat is a hate symbol and not just a bad fashion choice. The ones that stomped their feet and acted like sad little children when told they should "learn to code".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Mar 2019 @ 6:22am

      Re:

      Ummm were you unaware that Woods sued someone for saying he was a cocaine user on Twitter?
      That he screamed bloody murder about how it ruined his entire life, then took a couple gloating victory laps when the unknown person died in the course of the trial?

      Then stood wrapped in his they hate me cause I'm a conservative cloak after he publicly identified a woman as a nazi & gave his followers her details?

      Somehow calling him a cokehead is bad, but him calling others names is a-okay.

      Perhaps you need to learn to read & understand the full picture instead of what they tell you is the picture.
      But then you already have made up your mind...
      Where is your ridicule for Woods when he was stamping his feet when someone suggested he was a cokehead?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bobvious, 13 Mar 2019 @ 7:07am

        Re: Re:

        But James Woods might really like coke. It's less effective than some other forms of BBQ fuel but I guess you use what you want.

        Oh Wait! Were they saying he's not keen on pepsi?

        Although sometimes when people are all coked up, they usually just need some antihistamine to clear the sinuses. Slightly less aggressive than snorting wasabi like Johnny Knoxville.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2019 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      It's hilarious how transparent you are.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      TFG, 13 Mar 2019 @ 9:13am

      Re:

      Zof: If you wear a MAGA hat, that's a statement. Not just a fashion choice. You're free to make that statement, but I will call you an asshole for choosing to do so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.