Court: Facebook posts about law firm not defamatory

Listen to this article

DETROIT — A law firm that was criticized on Facebook by two Flint City Council members could not hold them liable, as their statements constitute opinions and are not actionable as defamation, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The firm, which operates in Flint, has represented and been affiliated with some members of the Flint City Council. Two councilwomen are supporters of the firm in Flint. To show their support, they purchased custom law firm shirts that were embroidered with their names. The fact that they did so became a topic of discussion in the Facebook group “Flint Politics.”

A defendant, who is also a member of the Flint City Council, posted a photo in the Flint Politics group showing the two councilwomen wearing their shirts at a public festival where the firm had purchased a booth for marketing. Alongside the photo, the post referenced two Michigan statutes prohibiting gifts to public officials and a portion of the Flint City Charter prohibiting bribing public officials, then questioned the ethics of the two councilwomen. Another defendant, in response to a comment, criticized the firm’s motives for attending Flint City Council meetings.

“We hold that [the defendant council member’s] statement regarding the [firm] shirts is not actionable as defamation. [The firm] contends that the ‘unambiguous implication of the post is that [the firm] engaged in illegally providing gifts to public officials.’ … But particularly in light of the forum, no reasonable viewer could interpret [the] post as asserting or implying factual truth. Two key characteristics of the post inform our analysis. First, the post’s precise language clarifies that the statement is an opinion, rather than an assertion of provable fact. Second, the post provides the factual basis for its interpretation, which generally signals a nonactionable opinion under Michigan law,” Judge Rachel Sarah Bloomekatz wrote for a three-judge 6th Circuit panel.

“As with [the defendant councilwoman’s post], we hold that [the second defendant’s] statement regarding [the firm’s] city council attendance is not actionable as defamation. [The firm] takes issue with the first line of [the second defendant’s] statement, where [the second defendant] replied to [a] question whether [the firm] attended Flint City Council meetings to arrange lawsuits by stating: ‘Yes, that’s why they are there.’ … [The firm] argues that this line of [the second defendant’s] post ‘states and implies that [the firm’s] attends Flint City Council meetings to induce people to bring lawsuits against the City of Flint.’ … But this statement constitutes an opinion, not an assertion or implication of provable fact, so it is not defamatory,” Bloomekatz stated.