### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-60002

TROUT POINT LODGE, LIMITED, a Nova Scotia Limited Company, VAUGHN PERRET, and CHARLES LEARY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

DOUG K. HANDSHOE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
f or the Southern District of Mississippi

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:

T h i s case r equires us to construe the newly-enacted Securing t h e

Protection of o u r E n during and Established Constitutional Heritage Act

( t h e “SPEECH Act”), 2 8 U .S .C

. § 4 1 0 2

. Appellants Trout P oint L odge

, L t d

. (“Trout Point Lodge”), Vaughn Perret ( “Perret”), a n d C harles Leary ( “Leary”)

(collectively, “Trout P oint”) seek to enforce a de f a m ation-based default judgment

that they obtained a gainst Appellee Doug K

. Handshoe ( “Handshoe”) in Nova

Scotia, Canada. We agree with the district court that T ro u t P o i n t ca n n o t sa tisfy

its b u rd e n u n d e r th e S P E E C H A ct t o sh o w th a t e ith e r (A ) N o v a S c o t ia n la w

p ro v id e d a t le a st a s m u ch p ro t e c t i o n f o r fre e d o m o f sp e e ch a n d p re ss in U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D
Septem ber 5, 2013

Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

H a n d sh o e ’ s ca se a s w o u ld b e p r o v id e d b y th e F irst A m e n d m e n t a n d r e le v a n t

sta te la w , o r (B ) H a n d sh o e w o u ld h a v e b e e n fo u n d lia b le fo r d e fa m a t io n b y a

M ississip p i co u r t. 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 1 0 2 . A c co rd i n g ly

, w e AFFIRM.

I.

H a n d sh o e , a M i ssissip p i citize n , o w n s a n d o p e ra te s S la b b e d .o rg , a p u b lica ffa irs b lo g w ith th e t a g lin e “A lte rn a tiv e N e w M e d ia fo r t h e G u l f S o u th .” H e

d e scrib e s S l a b b e d .o rg a s a “fo ru m fo r lo ca l re sid e n t s a n d o t h e r in te re ste d

p a rtie s to g a th e r a n d s h a re in fo rm a tio n r e g a rd i n g v a r io u s p o lit i c a l a n d le g a l

issu e s th a t im p a c t th e G u lf C o a st.”

O n e o f th e b lo g ’s fo ca l p o in ts o v e r th e la st fe w y e a rs h a s b e e n A a r o n

B r o u ssa rd

, th e fo r m e r P a r i s h P re sid e n t o f J e ffe rso n P a rish

, L o u isia n a

. 1

B r o u ssa rd w a s in d icte d in th e U n i te d S ta te s D istrict C o u rt fo r th e E a ste r n

D istrict o f L o u isia n a a n d p le a d e d g u ilty to ch a rg e s o f b rib e r y a n d th e f t in

S e p te m b e r 2 0 1 2 . H a n d sh o e cla i m s th a t S l a b b e d .o rg h a s b e e n “ in stru m e n ta l”

i n r e p o rtin g t h e “o n g o in g co rru p tio n sca n d a l, in d ictm e n t

, a n d g u ilty p l e a ”

in v o lv in g B r o u ssa r d

.

D u rin g h i s tim e in o ffice

, B ro u ssa rd o w n e d p ro p e rty in N o v a S co tia

. T h e

p ro p e rty sa t o n T ro u t P o in t R o a d

, v e ry clo se to T ro u t P o in t L o d g e , a h o te l th a t

P e rre t a n d L e a ry o w n a n d o p e ra te

. 2 In a b o u t J a n u a ry 2 0 1 0

, H a n d sh o e b e g a n

p u b lish in g e n trie s o n S la b b e d .o rg a lle g in g a lin k b e tw e e n B ro u ssa rd a n d T ro u t

P o in t L o d g e , P e rre t, a n d L e a ry

. A t o r n e a r th e sa m e tim e , th e T im es-P ica

y u n e ,

1 In ad d ition to his blog, the record ind icates that H and s hoe engages in s everal other
f orm s of internet com m unication. For ex a m p le, he m aintains a Tw itter account f or Slabbed .org and p os ts com m ents on s everal other w eb s ites

.

2 D aniel A

bel, a non- p arty to this s uit, is als o a p rincip al ow ner of Trout Point Lod ge.

2 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

a N e w O rle a n s n e w sp a p e r, p u b lish e d a n a r ticle i n d i ca tin g th a t B ro u ssa rd h a d

a n o w n e rsh ip i n te re st i n T ro u t P o i n t L o d g e a n d th a t J e ffe r so n P a rish

co n t ra cto rs h a d p a id to re n t th e p re m ise s. T h e T im es-P ica

y u n e re tra cte d th is

a sse r t io n a n d issu e d a co rre ctio n a fte r P e rre t a n d L e a ry a le r te d th e p a p e r to

p u rp o rte d “fa c t u a l e rro rs i n [its] re p o rtin g .” It a p p e a rs t h a t th e co rp o ra te

p a re n t o f th e T

i m es-P ica

y u n e a lso to o k th e S la b b e d .o rg b l o g o f flin e a fte r P e rre t

a n d L e a ry d e m a n d e d th i s r e t r a ctio n

. T h e d istrict c o u rt d e te rm i n e d th a t

H a n d sh o e , “a p p a r e n tly in re a ctio n to h is b lo g b e i n g t a k e n o fflin e , ” f o u n d

a n o th e r w e b h o st fo r h is s ite a n d “b e g a n a n in te rn e t ca m p a ig n to d a m a g e P e rre t

a n d L e a r y

. ” 3 S p e cifica lly

, H a n d sh o e p o ste d se v e ra l u p d a te s re g a rd in g T ro u t

P o in t L o d g e , P e rre t, a n d L e a r y , w h ich th e d istrict co u rt n o te d “ca n b e

ch a r a cte rize d a s d e r o g a t o ry , m e a n sp i rite d , se x ist, a n d h o m o p h o b ic.”

T r o u t P o in t file d s u it i n th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f N o v a S c o tia (th e “N o v a

S co tia C o u rt”) o n S e p te m b e r 1

, 2 0 1 1

, a lle g i n g d e fa m a tio n a n d re la t e d cla im s.

T r o u t P o in t’s F irst A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im re fe r re d to p u b lica tio n s o n

S la b b e d .o rg a n d re la te d th i rd -p a rty w e b site s, w h ich i t a sse rte d “w e re d ire ctly

d e fa m a t o ry a n d w e re a lso d e fa m a to ry b y b o th tru e a n d f a lse in n u e n d o in th a t

th e y w o u ld te n d to lo w e r t h e o p in io n o r e s tim a tio n o f th e p la in tiffs in t h e e y e s

o f o th e rs w h o re a d th e d e f a m a to ry p u b lica tio n s a s a se rie s, o r a l te rn a tiv e ly

, in

p a rts.” A t th e o u tse t, th e F irst A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im a sse rte d fo u r

3 In Ap ril 2011, H and s hoe w rote: “I think by now even our m os t cas ual read ers k now

o u r s ucces s or w ebs ite, Slabbed .org w as k nock ed of f line courtes y of the Tim es Picayu n e ’ s

corp orate p arent Ad vance Publications and this started a cha i n of events that res ulted in
Slabbed tem p orarily being m oved back to Word Pres s. I’d s ubm it this w as a m is calculation of
gargantuan p ro p ortions f or s everal reas ons , w hich w ill becom e clear as I roll out this s eries
of p os ts on Aaron Brous s ard ’s connections to T rout Point Lod ge and its p urp orted ow ners

. . . . ”

3 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

p rim a ry so u rce s o f re p u t a tio n a l h a rm : (1 ) co n te n t lin k i n g T ro u t P o in t w ith t h e

“J e ffe rso n P a rish P o l itica l C o rru p tio n S ca n d a l,” th e “stin g ” o f w h ich w a s th a t

“T ro u t P o in t L o d g e a n d its o w n e rs w e re so m e h o w in v o lv e d in co rru p tio n , fra u d

,

m o n e y l a u n d e rin g , a n d ‘p a y t o p la y ’ sch e m e s in v o lv in g J e ffe rso n P a rish

P r e s id e n t A a ro n B ro u ssa rd a n d h is a d m in i stra t io n ”; (2 ) th e “cle a r im p u ta tio n ”

th a t T r o u t P o in t “m isle d i n v e s t o r s a n d co u rt o f ficia l s i n litig a tio n ” w ith t h e

A t la n tic C a n a d a O p p o r tu n itie s A g e n c y (“A C O A ”), th e “stin g ” o f w h ich w a s th a t

“L e a ry p e rju re d h im se lf, i n ves t ors w e re m i sle d

, b u s in e sse s n e fa rio u sly c h a n g e d

o w n e rsh ip

, a n d th a t th e A C O A litig a tio n is o n g o in g , w ith th e p la in tiffs [lo sin g ]

e v e ry ste p o f th e w a y ”; (3 ) th e “im p u t a t io n ” th a t t h e “T r o u t P o in t L o d g e

b u sin e ss is a ctiv e ly fa ilin g , n e a r b a n k r u p t cy , h a v in g o n c e re lie d o n th e g o o d

g ra ce s o f A a ro n B ro u ssa rd ,” a lo n g w ith th e “re la te d im p u ta tio n ” t hat Per r et a n d

L e a r y “h a v e h a d a se r ie s o f f a ile d b u sin e sse s t h a t u se d o th e r p e o p le ’s m o n e y ,

cre a tin g a p a t te rn ,” th e “stin g ” o f w h ich w a s th a t T ro u t P o in ts’s “1 3 -y e a r-o ld

b u sin e ss is o n t h e v e r g e o f b a n k ru p tcy

, th a t th e p la in t iffs w ill ta k e th e m o n e y

a n d ru n , a n d t h a t t h e p la i n tiffs a re e ith e r co n a rtists o r h a v e n o b u s in e ss

ac u men w hat s oever ” ; and ( 4) t he “ unabas hed ant i -g a y , a n ti-h o mos exual r het or i c

a n d ra n ts o f th e d e fe n d a n t,” u se d to “a m p lify a n d su p p o rt th e th re e o th e r stin g s

liste d a b o v e ” a n d “ su p p o rt[] a n d sh o re [] u p a ll th e o th e r d e fa m a to ry

im p u ta tio n s.”

T h e F irst A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im co n tin u e d to d e scr i b e se v e ra l

sp e cific b lo g p o sts o n S l a b b e d .o rg , re citin g m u ch o f t h e o ffe n siv e la n g u a g e th a t

H a n d sh o e u s e d t o r e fe r to P e rre t a n d L e a ry

. S o m e o f th e a l le g e d d e fa m a to ry

sta te m e n ts in d ica te d H a n d s h o e ’s p o o r o p in io n o f P e r r et and L e a ry , fo r e x a m p le

,
th a t th e y “h a d C h a m p a g n e ta ste o n a b e e r b u d g e t ,” “w o rk a s a u n it to g rift th e ir

4 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

w a y th ro u g h life ,” a n d w e re e ith e r “first-cla ss b

- tch e s, co m m o n th u g s, o r p la in

o l’ m o ro n s.”

I n stating its defamation claim, Trout Point generically a lleged t h a t

Handshoe’s publications were false and malicious. It did not, h owever , m a ke

any specific statements to refute the truth o f the individual blog posts at issue. 4

For example, t h e First Amen d e d S tatement of Claim included n o information

regarding Trout Point’s actual connection to Broussard, i f any, o r its financial

solvency.

T r o u t P o in t p u rp o rte d ly s e rv e d H a n d sh o e w ith a n o tice o f t h e F irst

A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im in M ississip p i, b u t H a n d sh o e d id n o t a p p e a r in

th e N o v a S c o t ia a ctio n

. I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 1

, th e N o v a S c o tia C o u rt e n te re d a

d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t a g a in st H a n d s h o e (th e “N o v a S c o tia J u d g m e n t”). T h e N o v a

S co tia J u d g m e n t p ro v id e d : “ I n a cco rd a n ce w ith th e C iv il P ro ce d u re R u l e

3 1 .1 2 (4 ), D o u g la s K

. H a n d sh o e is n o w ta k e n to h a v e a d m i tte d

, fo r th e p u rp o se s

o f th is a ctio n , th e cla im s m a d e a g a in st h im in th e S ta te m e n t o f C la i m .”

T h e N o v a S c o tia C o u rt se t th e m a tte r fo r a h e a rin g t o a s s e ss d a m a g e s.

A t t h e h e a rin g , P e rre t a n d L e a ry te s t ifie d a n d o ffe r e d a d d itio n a l e v id e n ce

re g a r d in g H a n d s h o e ’s a lle g e d ly d e fa m a t o r y sta te m e n ts a n d th e d a m a g e th a t

4 Sp ecif ically, Trout Point m ad e the blank et as s ertion that the Slabbed

. org p os ts w ere “rep lete w ith inaccuracies and an ap p arent inattention to bas ic ethics and d uties to check f acts
bef ore publis hing, ” and that “the f als e statem ents s et fort h i n t h e d ef end ants ’ publications

exp os ed the p laintif

fs to p ublic contem p t, rid icule, avers ion, and dis grace, and ind uced an evil

op inion of the p laintif f s in the m ind s of right- think ing p ers ons and dep rived the p laintif f s of

their f riend ly intercours e in and com m e r c e w i t h s ociety. ” The Firs t Am end ed Statem ent of
Claim f urther alleged that H and s hoe acted in a “reck les s and m alicious m anner without d ue

cons id eration f

or the s tand ard s of inf

orm ation gathering an dis s em ination ord inarily f ollow ed by res p ons ible w riters

, ed itors

, and p ublis hers

, ” d is regard ing w hether the p ublis hed content

w as “true or f

als e. ”

5 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

th e y in flicte d o n T ro u t P o in t L o d g e , a n d P e rre t a n d L e a ry in d iv id u a lly

.

F o llo w i n g th e h e a rin g , th e co u rt issu e d a n o r a l d e cisio n su m m a r izin g t h e

re le v a n t C a n a d ia n la w , th e co n te n t o f th e p u b l ica tio n s a t issu e , a n d th e h a rm

th a t T ro u t P o in t p u rp o rte d l y su ffe re d

. U ltim a te ly

, th e co u rt a w a rd e d T ro u t

P o in t L o d g e $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 in g e n e ra l d a m a g e s, a n d L e a ry a n d P e rre t e a c h $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

in g e n e r a l d a m a g e s, $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 in a g g ra v a te d d a m a g e s , a n d $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 in p u n itiv e

d a m a g e s. It a lso a w a rd e d $ 2 ,0 0 0 in co sts. 5

T r o u t P o in t e n ro lle d th e N o v a S co tia J u d g m e n t in th e C ircu it C o u rt o f

H a n co ck C o u n ty

, M i ssissip p i, in M a rch 2 0 1 2 i n a n a tte m p t to co lle ct its

d a m a g e s a w a rd

. H a n d s h o e r e m o v e d th e a ctio n to th e U n ite d S ta te s D istrict

C o u rt fo r t h e S o u th e rn D i s t r i ct o f M i ssissip p i p u r su a n t to th e S P E E C H A ct.

T h e p a rtie s a g re e d th a t a ll issu e s w e re strictly le g a l in n a tu re a n d , th e re fo re ,

e le cte d to su b m it th e m a tte r to th e d istrict co u rt o n cro ss-m o t i o n s fo r su m m a ry

ju d g m e n t.

T h e d istrict co u rt e n t e re d su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in H a n d sh o e ’ s fa v o r,

fin d in g t h a t T r o u t P o i n t fa i le d to m e e t its b u rd e n u n d e r th e S P E E C H A ct to

sh o w th a t “H a n d sh o e w a s a ffo rd e d a t l e a s t a s m u ch p ro te ctio n fo r fre e d o m o f

5 In ad dition to monetary relief

, the N ova Scotia Court entered a p erm anent injunction agains t H and s hoe, “ r e st r a i n i n g him f rom d is s em inating, pos ting on the Internet or p ublis hing,

in any manner w hats oever, d irectly or ind irectly, any statem ents about the p laintif f s , Trout
Point Lod ge, Charles L. Leary, and [ Vaughn] J. P erret. ” The injunction includ ed “p ublication,
circulation and prom otion on the blog nam ed Slabbed

, and any s im ilar or other p ublications

. ”

The court ad d ed

, f

or “f urther p articularity, ” that H and s hoe “s hall not p ublis h or caus e to be

p ublis hed or otherw is e d is sem inate or d is trib u t e in any manner w hats oever

. . . any

s tatem ents or other com m unications w hi c h r e f e r t o the p laintif

f s by nam e, d ep iction or d es crip tion. ” It ord ered H and s hoe to im m ed iately rem ove any s uch m aterial f rom p ublication.

Trout Point d oes not s eek to enf orce the injunction in this action. Rightly s o, as the injunction

d oes not com p ort w ith even the m os t b a s i c p r otections agains t prior res traints on s p eech in

t h e U nited States

. See N eb. Press A ss’n v

. Stua rt

, 427 U

. S. 539, 559 ( 1976) ( exp l a i n i n g t h e heavy p res um p tion that a prior res traint on s peech is uncons titutional)

.

6 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

sp e e c h in [th e N o v a S c o t i a ] a ctio n a s h e w o u ld h a v e i n a d o m e stic p ro ce e d in g

o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly

, th a t H a n d sh o e w o u ld h a v e b e e n fo u n d lia b le fo r d e fa m a tio n

b y a d o m e stic co u rt.” T ro u t P o in t tim e ly a p p e a le d

.

I I.

W e re v ie w d e n o v o a d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a r y j u d g m e n t, a p p ly in g

th e sa m e sta n d a rd a s th e d istrict co u rt. F o rd M o to r C o

. v

. T

ex

. D ep ’t o f T

ra n sp

. ,

2 6 4 F

. 3 d 4 9 3

, 4 9 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (cita tio n o m itte d ). Summary judgment is

appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine d is p u t e as to any

material fact and t he movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 5 6(a). “ A g e n u in e issu e o f m a te r ia l fa ct e x ists w h e n th e e v id e n ce is

su ch t h a t a r e a s o n a b le ju ry co u l d r e t u r n a v e r d ict fo r th e n o n -m o v i n g p a rty .”

G a t es v

. T

ex

. D ep ’t o f P r o tectiv e & R eg u la to ry S erv s. , 5 3 7 F

. 3 d 4 0 4

, 4 1 7 (5 th C ir.

2 0 0 8 ) (citin g A n d erso n v

. L ib erty L o b b y , In c

. , 4 7 7 U .S

. 2 4 2

, 2 4 7

– 4 8 (1 9 8 6 )). “O n

cro ss-m o tio n s fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w e re v ie w e a ch p a rty ’s m o tio n

in d e p e n d e n tly

, v ie w in g th e e v id e n ce a n d i n fe re n ce s i n th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b l e

to t h e n o n m o v in g p a rty .” F o r d

, 2 6 4 F .3 d a t 4 9 8 (citin g T a y lo r v

. G reg

g , 3 6 F .3 d

4 5 3 , 4 5 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )).

III.

T h is a ctio n d e p e n d s o n o u r in te r p re ta tio n o f th e S P E E C H A ct. T h e ta sk

o f sta t u t o ry in te rp re ta tio n b e g in s a n d

, if p o ssib le

, e n d s w ith th e l a n g u a g e o f t h e

s t a t u t e

. I

n re N o w lin

, 5 7 6 F .3 d 2 5 8

, 2 6 1

– 6 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (citin g L a m ie v

.

U .S

. T ru stee

, 5 4 0 U .S

. 5 2 6

, 5 3 4 (2 0 0 4 )). W h e n th e l a n g u a g e i s p l a in

, w e “m u s t

e n fo rce th e sta tu te ’s p la in m e a n i n g , u n le ss a b su rd

. ” Id

. ; see a lso B e d R o c L td

.

v

. U n ited S ta tes

, 5 4 1 U .S

. 1 7 6

, 1 8 3 (2 0 0 4 ) (“T h e p re e m in e n t ca n o n o f sta tu to ry

in t e rp re ta tio n r e q u i r e s [ th e c o u rt] to ‘p re su m e th a t [th e ] le g isla t u re s a y s in a

7 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

sta tu te w h a t i t m e a n s a n d m e a n s in a s t a t u t e w h a t it sa y s t h e re .’” ( q u o tin g

C o n n

. N a t’l B a n k v

. G erm a in

, 5 0 3 U .S

. 2 4 9

, 2 5 3

– 5 4 (1 9 9 2 ) ) ). W e d e te rm in e

w h e th e r sta tu to ry la n g u a g e is p la in o r a m b ig u o u s “b y r e fe re n ce to t h e la n g u a g e

i t s e l f

, t h e sp e cific co n te x t in w h ich th a t l a n g u a g e is u se d

, a n d th e b ro a d e r

co n t e x t o f th e sta tu te a s a w h o le

. ” R o b in s o n v

. S h ell O il C o

. , 5 1 9 U .S

. 3 3 7

, 3 4 1

(1 9 9 7 ).

M a n y co m m e n ta to rs h a v e e x p la i n e d th a t C o n g re ss e n a cte d th e S P E E C H

A c t in 2 0 1 0 in re s p o n se to th e p e rce iv e d th re a t o f “lib e l to u r i sm , ” a f o r m o f

in t e rn a tio n a l fo ru m -sh o p p i n g in w h i c h a p la in tiff ch o o se s to file a d e fa m a tio n

cla im i n a fo re ig n ju r isd ictio n w ith m o r e fa v o ra b le s u b sta n t iv e la w

. 6 In

e n a ctin g th e sta t u te

, C o n g re s s fo u n d th a t “b y se e k in g o u t fo re ig n ju risd ictio n s

th a t d o n o t p r o v id e th e f u ll e x te n t o f fre e -sp e e c h p ro te ctio n s to a u th o rs a n d

p u b lish e rs th a t a re a v a ila b l e in th e U n ite d S ta t e s” a n d b y su in g U n ite d S ta te s

a u th o r s o r p u b lish e rs in th o se fo re ig n ju risd ictio n s, so m e p e rso n s w e re

“o b stru ctin g ” t h e fre e e x p re s sio n rig h t s o f d o m e stic a u th o rs a n d p u b lish e rs a n d

“ch illi n g” domes t i c c i tize n s’ F irst A m e n d m e n t i n te r e s t in “re c e iv in g in f o rm a tio n

o n m a tte rs o f im p o rta n ce .” 7 S ee F in d in g s to P u b

. L

. N o

. 1 1 1 -2 2 3

, § 2

, 1 2 4 S ta t.

6 See, e. g. , Lili L evi, The Probl em of Tra ns- N a ti ona l L ibel

, 60 A m

. J. Com p. L. 507, 508

n. 1, 509–10 (2012) ; And rew R. K lein, Som e Thoughts on Li bel Touri sm , 38 P ep p. L. Rev. 375,

391 ( 2011) ; D oug Rend lem an, C o l l ecti ng a Li bel Touri st’s D ef am a t i on Judgm ent?

, 67 Was h.
& Lee L. Rev. 467, 468 ( 2010) ; Tara Sturtevant, Ca n the U ni ted Sta tes Ta l k t he Ta l k & Wa l k

t h e W a l k When i t Com es to Li bel Touri sm : H ow the Freedom t o Sue A broa d Ca n Ki l l t h e Freedom of Sp eech a t H om e , 22 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 269, 269 ( 2010) ; R obert L. M cFarland

, Pl ea se D o N ot Publ i sh Thi s A rti cl e i n E ngl a nd: A Juri sdi cti ona l Resp onse to Li bel Touri sm , 79 M is s

. L. J. 617, 625 ( 2010) ; Sarah Staveley- O ’Carroll, Li bel Touri sm L a w s: Sp oi l i ng the H ol i da y a nd
Sa vi ng the Fi rst A m endm ent?

, 4 N

. Y

. U

. J. L. & Liberty 252, 264 ( 2009)

.

7 Bef ore Congres s enacted the SPEECH Act, s om e courts had ref us ed to enf

orce f oreign

d e f a ma t ion jud gm ents on Firs t Am end m ent p ublic- p olicy ground s

. See, e. g. , Ba chc h a n v

. I n d i a A broa d Publ ’ns, Inc

. , 5 8 5 N

. Y

. S

. 2d 661, 665 ( N

. Y

. Sup

. Ct. 1992) ( s tating that the Firs t

8 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

2 3 8 0

, r e p ro d u ce d in th e N o te s se ctio n o f 2 8 U .S .C

. § 4 1 0 1

. It fu rth e r fo u n d th a t

“[g ]o v e rn m e n t s a n d co u rts o f fo re ig n c o u n trie s sca tte re d a ro u n d th e w o rld h a v e

fa ile d to cu rta il th is p ra ctice

. . . a n d fo re ig n lib e l ju d g m e n ts in co n siste n t w ith

U n ite d S ta te s [F ]irst [A ]m e n d m e n t p ro te c tio n s a r e in cre a sin g ly co m m o n .” Id

.

W i th th e s e fin d in g s in m in d , th e S P E E C H A ct p r o v id e s th a t a d o m e stic

co u r t “sh a ll n o t re co g n ize o r e n fo rce a fo r e ig n ju d g m e n t fo r d e fa m a tio n ” u n le ss

it sa tisfie s b o th F i r s t A m e n d m e n t a n d d u e p ro ce ss co n s id e r a tio n s. S ee 2 8

U .S

. C

. § 4 1 0 2

. W e fo cu s o u r in q u iry o n th e s t a t u t e ’ s “F irst A m e n d m e n t

co n s id e r a tio n s” p ro v isio n

.
U n d e r th e “F irst A m e n d m e n t co n sid e ra tio n s” p ro v isio n o f th e S P E E C H

A c t, a fo re i g n d e fa m a tio n ju d g m e n t is u n re co g n iza b le a n d u n e n fo rce a b le u n le ss

(A ) t h e d e fa m a tio n l a w a p p l ie d in t h e fo re ig n co u r t ’s a d ju d ica tio n

p ro v id e d a t le a st a s m u ch p ro te ctio n fo r f r e e d o m o f sp e e ch a n d

p re ss in th a t ca se a s w o u ld b e p r o v id e d b y th e [F ]irst [A ]m e n d m e n t

to th e C o n stitu tio n o f t h e U n ite d S ta te s a n d b y th e co n stitu tio n a n d
la w o f th e S t a te in w h i ch th e d o m e stic co u rt is lo ca t e d ; o r

(B ) e v e n i f th e d e fa m a tio n la w a p p lie d in t h e fo re ig n c o u r t’s

a d ju d ica tio n d id n o t p ro v id e a s m u ch p ro te ctio n fo r fre e d o m o f

sp e e ch a n d p re ss a s th e [F ]irst [A ]m e n d m e n t to th e C o n s titu t i o n o f

th e U n ite d S t a te s a n d th e co n stitu tio n a n d la w o f th e S t a te

, th e

p a rty o p p o s in g re co g n itio n o r e n fo rce m e n t o f th a t fo re ig n j u d g m e n t

w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

o u n d l i a b le f

o r d e fa m a tio n b y a d o m e stic co u rt

a p p ly in g th e [F ] irst [ A ]m e n d m e n t to th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ite d

Am end m ent “w ould be s erious ly jeop a r d i z e d by entry of [ a] f oreign libel jud g m ent granted

p urs uant to s t a n d a r d s d eem ed ap p rop riate in England but cons id ered antithetical to the

p rotections af

f ord ed [ to] the p res s b y the U

. S. Cons titution”) ; Tel ni kof f v

. M a tusev i tch

, 702
A. 2d 230, 251 ( M d

. 1997) ( “[ A ] t the heart of the Firs t Am end m ent

. . . is the recognition of the
f und am ental im p ortance of the f ree f low of id eas and op inions on m atters of p ublic interes t

a n d concern. The im p ortance of that free flow of id eas and op inions on m atters of p u b l i c

concern p reclud es M aryland recognition of Telnik of f ’s Englis h libel jud gm ent. ” ( internal quotation m ark s and citation om itted ) )

.

9 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

S ta te s a n d th e c o n stitu tio n a n d la w o f th e S ta te in w h ich th e d o m e stic co u rt is lo ca te d

. § 4 1 0 2 (a )(1 )

.
A l t h o u g h th e re is n o c a se la w d i re ctly in te rp re tin g th e se tw o p ro n g s, t h e

p la in la n g u a g e o f th e sta tu t e su g g e sts tw o d i stin ct o p t io n s f o r a p a rty se e k in g

to e n fo rce a fo re ig n d e fa m a tio n ju d g m e n t: o n e f o cu se d o n t h e la w a p p lie d b y

th e fo re ig n fo ru m a n d o n e fo cu se d o n th e fa cts th e p a rtie s p r e se n te d in t h e

fo re ig n p ro ce e d in g

. 8 P u t d iffe re n tly

, a p a rty m a y e n fo rce a fo re ig n d e fa m a tio n

ju d g m e n t in a d o m e stic co u rt if e ith e r (A ) t h e la w o f th e fo re ig n fo ru m , a s

a p p lie d in th e fo re ig n p ro ce e d in g , p ro v id e s fre e -sp e e ch p ro te ctio n th a t is

co e x t e n siv e w ith r e le v a n t d o m e stic la w , 9 o r ( B ) th e fa cts, a s p r o v e n i n t h e

fo re ig n p ro c e e d in g , a re su fficie n t to e sta b lish a d e fa m a tio n cla i m u n d e r

d o m e s t ic la w . W e a d d re ss e a ch p ro n g in tu rn

.
A

.

8 When cons truing a statute, a court should give ef fect, if pos s ible, to every w ord and

every p rovis ion C ongres s us ed

. See, e. g

. , D u n c a n v

. Wa l ker

, 533 U

. S. 167, 174 ( 2001) ( “[ A]

s tatute ought, up on t h e w hole, to be s o cons trued that, if it can be p revented

, no claus e,

s ente n c e , o r w ord shall be s up erf luous

, void

, or ins ignif icant” ( internal quotation m ark s

om itted ) )

. Als o, if p os s ible, the court inter p r e t s p r ovis ions of a statute in a manner that

rend ers them com patible, not contrad ictory. See FD A v

. Brow n & Wi l l i a m son Toba cco Corp

. , 529 U

. S. 120, 132 ( 2000) (“A court m us t

. . . i n t e rp ret the s tatute as a s ym m etrical and
coherent regulatory s chem e, and f it, if p os s ible, all parts into an harm onious w hole. ” ( internal quotation m ark s and citations om itted ) )

.

9 The s tatute d oes not require that a l l of a f oreign forum ’s law be coextens ive w ith the

Firs t A m end m ent, but rather only th e l a w ap plied “in that cas e. ” § 4102( a) ( 1) ( A)

. For

exam p le, p res um e that the f ree s p eech juris p rud ence of Country X is id entical to d om es tic law

i n e v ery res p ect excep t as ap p lied to p ublic f igures

. Ap p lying p rong one of the “F i r s t
Am end m ent cons id erations ” inquiry, a d ef am ation jud g m ent aw ard ed agains t a non- p ublic
f igure in Country X w ould be enf orceable in the U nited States

, as the law ap p lied to the cas e

w as coextens ive w ith the Firs t Am end m ent. I t w ould not be enf orceable, how ever— at leas t

not on the bas is of § 4102( a) ( 1) ( A)

— agains t a public f igure.

10 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

T h e re is n o m e a n in g fu l d isp u te th a t th e la w a p p lie d b y th e N o v a S co tia

C o u rt p ro v id e s le ss p r o te ctio n o f sp e e ch a n d p re ss th a n F irst A m e n d m e n t a n d

M ississip p i la w

. C a n a d i a n d e fa m a tio n la w is d e riv a tiv e o f th e d e f a m a tio n la w

o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m , w h ich h a s lo n g b e e n su b sta n tia lly le s s p ro te ctiv e o f fre e

sp e e c h

. A s J u s t i ce B l a ck n o te d in B rid g es v . C a lifo rn ia :

N o p u rp o se in ra tify in g th e B ill o f R ig h ts w a s cle a re r th a n th a t o f

se cu rin g fo r th e p e o p l e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s m u c h g r e a te r fre e d o m

o f re lig i o n , e x p re ssio n , a sse m b ly

, a n d p e titio n t h a n th e p e o p le o f
G re a t B rita in h a d e v e r e n j o y e d

. . . . R a tifie d a s it w a s w h ile th e

m e m o ry o f m a n y o ppr es s i ve E ngl i s h r e s t r ictio n s o n th e e n u m e ra te d

lib e r tie s w a s still fre sh

, th e F irst A m e n d m e n t c a n n o t re a so n a b ly b e
ta k e n a s a p p ro v in g p re v a le n t E n g lish p r a c tice s. O n th e c o n tra ry , th e o n ly co n clu sio n s u p p o r t e d b y h isto ry is th a t th e u n q u a lifie d

p ro h ib itio n s la id d o w n b y t h e f r a m e rs w e re in te n d e d to g iv e to
lib e r ty o f th e p re ss, a s to th e o th e r lib e rtie s , th e b ro a d e st sco p e th a t

co u ld b e co u n te n a n ce d in a n o rd e rly so cie ty

.

3 1 4 U .S

. 2 5 2 , 2 6 5 (1 9 4 1 ). T h u s, w h i le C a n a d ia n la w g e n e ra lly co m p o rts w ith

Engl and’s tra d i tio n a l co m m o n -la w a p p ro a ch

, t h e Uni t ed S t a t es has par t ed ways

w ith its n o rth e rn n e i g h b o r in m a tte rs o f fre e sp e e ch

. 1 0

1 0 Although Englis h com m on law in the co l o n i a l era p rohibited p rior res traints on

s p ee c h

, a p u b lis her w as s ubject to p unis hm ent f or “im p rop er, m is chievous

, or illegal”

s tatem ents

, regard les s of their truth. See Rod ney A. Sm olla, Sm olla & N im m er on Freed om of Sp eech § 1. 5 ( citation om itted ) ; see a l so Van Vechten Veed er, The Hi story a nd Theory of the

La w of D ef

a m a t i on , 3 Colum

. L

. Rev. 546 ( 1903) ( of f e r i n g a n extens ive overview of early

d ef am ation law in England ). Although both Englis h and Canad ian d ef a m ation law have

evolved som ew hat, Canad ian law generally aligns w ith the Englis h ap p roach. S ee Rod ney A

. Sm olla, Law of D ef

am ation § 1: 9. 75 ( 20 1 3 )

. T h e U nited States ’s Firs t Am end m ent law d oes
not. See Cha

p l i nsky v

. N

ew H am p shi re , 315 U

. S. 568, n. 3 ( 1942) (“The p rotection of the Firs t
Am end m ent, m irrored in the Fourteenth, is not lim ited to the Black s tonian id ea that f reed om of the pres s m eans only f reed om f rom res traint p rior to p ublication. ”) ; see a l so B a chcha n , 585
N

. Y. S. 2d at 665 ( hold ing that an Englis h libel jud g m ent w as unenf orce a b l e b e c a u s e it w as “antithetical to the p rotections af f ord ed the p res s by the U

. S. C ons titution”) ; Tel ni kof f

, 877

11 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

T h e m o st critica l le g a l d iffe re n ce h er e i s t hat a Canadi an pl ain tiff— u n lik e

a p la in tiff su b je ct to F irst A m e n d m e n t a n d M ississip p i sta te l a w

— n e e d n o t

p ro v e fa lsity a s a n e l e m e n t o f its p r im a fa cie d e fa m a tio n cla im

. R a th e r, in

C a n a d a , tru th is a d e fe n se th a t a d e f a m a tio n d e fe n d a n t m a y ra ise a n d

, if so ,

m u st p ro v e

. C o m

p a re G r a n t v

. T

o rsta r , (2 0 0 9 ) 3 S .C

. R

. 6 4 0

, p a ra

. 2 8

– 3 2 (C a n .)

(h o ld i n g th a t “fa lsity a n d d a m a g e s a re p re su m e d ” if a p l a in tiff p ro v e s t h e

e le m e n ts o f a p rim a f

a c i e d e fa m a tio n c a s e ), w ith B la k e v

. G a n n et C o

. , 5 2 9 S o

.

2 d 5 9 5

, 6 0 2 ( M iss. 1 9 8 8 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a d e f a m a tio n p la in tiff b e a rs th e b u rd e n

o f p r o v in g fa lsity ). 1 1 S ee E u g e n i e B ro u ille t, F ree S p eech

, R ep u t a tio n , a n d th e

C a n a d ia n B a la n ce , 5 0 N .Y .L

. S ch

. L

. R e v

. 3 3

, 5 2 (2 0 0 6 ) (“In th e C a n a d i a n

co m m o n la w , th e co u r ts h a v e ch o se n a lo w th re sh o ld fo r th e e sta b lish m e n t b y

th e p la in tiff o f a p rim a f a cie ca u se o f a ctio n in d e fa m a tio n , o ffe rin g co n sid e ra b l e

p ro te c tio n to h is r ig h t to re p u ta tio n

. T h e b a l a n ce i n f a v o r o f fre e sp e e ch is

re sto re d b y a n u m b e r o f d e fe n se s, b u t th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f re sts o n t h e

F. Sup p. 1 ( hold ing that a n E n g l i s h libel jud gm ent w as not enf orceable becaus e it w as “contrary to U

. S. libel stand ard s ”)

.

1 1 Canad ian law is als o les s p rotective t h a n d om es tic law regard ing the s tand ard of

p roof that ap p lies to s tatem ents ab o ut p ublic f igures

. Sp ecif

ically, d om es tic law requires a

p laintif f to p rove, by clear and co n v i n c i n g e v id ence, that the alleged d ef am ers acted w ith

actual m alice; Canad ian law d oes not. Com p a re G a nnett Co.

, 529 So. 2d at 600, w i th H i l l v

. Church of Sci entol ogy of Toronto

, ( 1995) 2 S. C. R. 1130 ( Can. )

. H and s hoe as s erts that this legal d if f erence is im portant here becaus e Trout Point is

a vortex public f

igure and

, theref

ore, T rout Point m us t m eet the heightened “actual m alice”

s tand ard

. See Ea son v

. F ed. B roa d. Co.

, 697 So. 2d 435, 438 ( Mis s

. 1997) ( def ining a vortex

p ublic f igu r e a s “one who is otherw is e a p rivate citizen but w ho thrus ts him s elf or becom es thrus t into the vortex of a matter of legitim ate p ublic interes t” (citation om itted ) ). We need

not d ecid e thi s i s s u e b e caus e Trout Point f ailed to d em ons trate that it p roved fals ity in the

N ova Scotia p roceed ing, the m ore bas ic requirem ent to up hold the N ova Scotia Jud gm ent.

12 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

d e fe n d a n t. In co m p a riso n , . . . A m e rica n la w s b o th se e m to sh o w a ce rta in b ia s

to w a rd s fre e d o m o f e x p re ssio n a n d fre e d o m o f th e p re ss; t h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f o f

th e w ro n g fu l n a t u re o f th e in ju ry to re p u ta tio n lie s in b o t h c a s e s w ith t h e

p e rso n d e fa m e d

. ” ( fo o tn o te o m itte d )). T h u s, T ro u t P o in t ca n n o t sa tisfy th e first

p ro n g o f th e F irst-A m e n d m e n t co n sid e ra tio n s in q u iry ; th a t is, th e la w a p p lie d

in th e N o v a S co tia p ro ce e d in g d id n o t p r o v id e a t le a st a s m u ch p ro te ctio n f o r

fre e d o m o f sp e e ch a n d p re ss a s H a n d sh o e w o u ld h a v e re ce iv e d u n d e r d o m e stic

la w

.

B

.

T h e m o re ch a lle n g in g q u e stio n in th is c a s e a r i s e s fro m th e sta tu te ’s

se co n d p ro n g : w h e th e r a M ississip p i co u rt p re se n te d w ith th e sa m e fa cts a n d

circu m sta n ce s w o u ld h a v e f o u n d H a n d sh o e lia b l e fo r d e fa m a tio n

. T h e a n sw e r

d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e fa cts T ro u t P o in t p r o v e d in th e N o v a S co tia p ro ce e d in g

w e re su fficie n t to d e m o n stra te fa lsity u n d e r th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n stitu tio n a n d

M ississip p i sta te la w

. In M ississip p i, “[t]h e th re s h o ld q u e stio n in a d e fa m a tio n

su it is w h e th e r th e p u b lish e d sta te m e n ts a re fa lse

. T ru t h is a co m p le te d e fe n se

to a n a ctio n fo r lib e l

. T h e p la in tiff b e a rs th e b u rd e n t o p ro v e su ch fa lsity .”

A rm i stea d v

. M

i n o r, 8 1 5 S o

. 2 d 1 1 8 9

, 1 1 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o ta t io n s a n d

cita tio n s o m itte d ). S ig n ifica n tly

, sta t e m e n ts th a t a re “ su b sta n t ia lly tru e ” a re

n o t d e fa m a to r y in M ississip p i. Id

. “A s th e U n i te d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s

n o te d

, m in o r i n a c cu ra cie s d o n o t a m o u n t to fa lsity so l o n g a s th e su b sta n ce , t h e

g ist, th e stin g , o f th e lib e lo u s c h a rg e b e ju stifie d .” Id

. (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s

o m itte d ) (q u o tin g M

a s so n v

. N

ew Y o r k e r M a g a zin e, In c ., 5 0 1 U .S 4 9 6

, 5 1 7

(1 9 9 1 )).

13 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

A p p ly in g F irst A m e n d m e n t a n d M ississip p i la w , th e d istrict co u rt

co n c lu d e d th a t T ro u t P o in t fa ile d to p ro v e fa lsity i n th e N o v a S c o t ia p ro c e e d in g :

[H ]a d th e P l a in t i f

f s file d th e ir d e fa m a tio n a ctio n in M ississip p i,

th e y w o u ld b e re q u ire d t o p ro v e fa lsity b e f o re th e y w o u l d b e

e n title d to d a m a g e s. H a n d sh o e h a s n o t p u b lish e d a n y s p e cific

a lle g a tio n s a b o u t w h a t ro le h e b e lie v e s L e a ry a n d P e rre t p la y e d in

B r o u ssa rd ’ s crim e s

. It is p o ssib le t h is is b e ca u se H a n d sh o e d o e s n o t
h a v e a n y in fo rm a tio n in d ica tin g P la in tiffs w e re in v o l v e d in

B r o u ssa rd ’ s crim i n a l a ctiv ity

. H a n d sh o e , h a s , h o w e v e r, m a d e

n u m e ro u s m o re g e n e ra lize d a lle g a tio n s a b o u t co n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n L e a ry , P e rre t

, A b e l, a n d B ro u ssa rd

. S o m e o f t h e se s ta te m e n ts

se e m to b e b a se d in fa ct; o th e rs a p p e a r[] to b e co n sp ira cy th e o rie s th a t m a y o r m a y n o t b e su b s ta n tia te d

. A s n o t e d a b o v e , u n d e r th e la w o f M i ssissip p i, e v e n th o se sta te m e n ts th a t a re “su b sta n tia lly

tru e ” a re p ro te cte d sp e e ch

. A n d th is C o u rt ca n n o t det er m in e , b a se d

o n th e r e co rd b e fo re it, th e tru th o r f a l s i t y o f H a n d sh o e ’s cla im s th a t th e P la in tiffs a re co n n e cte d to A a ro n B r o u ssa rd ’s crim i n a l

a ctiv itie s. N o r sh o u ld it e n fo rce a ju d g m e n t i n a n a c t io n th a t, if

b ro u g h t in th i s C o u r t, w o u ld d e p e n d u p o n th e p la in tiff’s p ro o f th a t
th e sta te m e n ts a t issu e a re fa lse

.
O n a p p e a l, T ro u t P o in t criticize s th e di s t r i c t c our t ’ s r e a so n in g b e ca u se it “h in g e s

e n tire ly u p o n th e f

a u l ty p re m ise th a t [ T ro u t P o i n t] fa ile d to p ro v e th e fa lsity o f

th e p u b lica tio n s a t issu e .” 1 2 T ro u t P o in t re lie s o n tw o k e y s o u rce s to e sta b lish

1 2 T rout Point as s erts that the d is trict court m ay have relied on s ources outs id e of the

s um m ary jud gm ent record to reach its conclus ion. The dis trict court d id ref er to the num ber
of p os ts regard ing Trout Point that ap p eared on Slabbed

. org in 2012 and a s ep a r ately- f iled

cas e p end ing in the Eas tern Dis trict of Louis iana, in w hich the p laintif f s alleged a connection
betw een Trout Point and Brous s ard

. Thes e are m atters about w hic h the court w as entitled

to tak e jud icial notice. See, e. g. , Ki tty H a w k A irca rgo, Inc. v

. Cha o. , 418 F. 3d 453, 457 ( 5th Cir. 2005) (tak ing jud icial notice of ap p roval by the National M ed iation Board p u b lis hed on the agency’s w ebs ite) ; Col em a n v

. D retke

, 409 F. 3d 665, 667 ( 5th Cir. 2005) ( tak ing jud icial notice
of Texas agency’s w ebs ite)

. M oreover, caref ul review of the d is trict court op inion d em ons trates
that it d id not us e thes e s ources to reach any conclus ion. T hus

, w e reject Trout Point’s

14 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

th e fa l sity o f H a n d sh o e ’s sta te m e n ts: (1 ) th e a lle g a tio n s in T ro u t P o in t’s F irst

A m e n d e d S t a te m e n t o f C la im

, d e e m e d a d m itte d b y t h e N o v a S co tia J u d g m e n t,

a n d (2 ) th e N o v a S co tia C o u r t’s p u rp o rte d fa c tu a l fin d in g s m a d e i n th e co u rse

o f a w a rd in g d a m a g e s. In o u r v ie w , n e i th e r is su fficie n t to e sta b lish th a t a

M ississip p i co u rt c o n fro n te d w ith t h e sa m e fa cts a n d circu m s ta n ce s w o u ld h a v e

fo u n d H a n d sh o e lia b le fo r d e fa m a tio n

. W e tu r n first to th e a lle g a tio n s d e e m e d

a d m itte d b y N o v a S co tia J u d g m e n t.

1

.

In M ississip p i, a p la i n tiff m a y o b ta in a d e fa u l t ju d g m e n t w h e n t h e

d e fe n d a n t “h a s fa ile d to p le a d o r o th e rw ise d e fe n d ” th e ca se

. M is s

. R

. C iv

. P

.

5 5 (a ); see a lso F e d

. R

. C iv

. P

. 5 5 (a )

. B u t a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t is n o t a p p ro p ria te

if the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a c laim. DynaSteel Corp. v.

Aztec Indus., Inc.

, 611 So. 2d 977, 9 88 (Miss. 1 9 9 2 ) ( r eversing a punitive

damages award pursuant to a default judg m e n t where the plaintiff’s “blanket

assertions” were insufficient to support the relief awarded); see Lewis v. Lynn

,

2 3 6 F

. 3 d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding district court’s d enial of entry o f

default judgment because, even if true, t h e plaintiff’s allegations d id not support

a finding of liability). 1 3

If a court does award a default judgment, it is “ unassailable on the merits

argum ent.

1 3 See a l so Wa l dron v. M i l a na , N o. 5: 10- CV- 0065 G TS/ D EP, 2013 WL 2445047, at *5 ( N

. D

. N

. Y

. June 5, 2013) ( d eclining to aw ard a d ef ault jud gm ent on a d ef am ation claim w here
the f acts alleged w ere “not s uf f icient to s tate a claim ” becaus e the alleged i n j u r y occurred

outs id e of the lim itations p eriod )

.

15 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

but only so far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations, a ssumed to be true .”

L e a ch v

. S h elter In s. C o

. , 9 0 9 S o

. 2 d 1 2 8 3

, 1 2 8 7

– 8 8 (M i s s

. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 )

(emphasis added) (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co., L td. v. Hous. Nat’l Bank

, 515

F.2d 1 200, 1206 (5th C ir. 1975)). 1 4 “ Allegations that are in effect c onclusions of

law are not considered well-pleaded allegations

. . . and a d efendant will not be

held to have admitted such averments on default.” D ynaSteel

, 611 So. 2d at 985.

Thus, a default judgment d oes not equate to “a general admission or an a bsolute

confession.” L ea c h , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 7

– 8 8

. 1 5

Applying these principles here, Trout Point f ailed to show that a state or

federal c ourt in Missis s i p p i f a ced with the First Amended Statement of Claim

would have awarded a default j u d g m e nt i n its favor. A lthough Handshoe’s

failure to answer or o therwise defend the case satisfies the basic prerequisite for

1 4 Thes e cas es ap pl y t h e c o m m ent to M is s is s ip pi Rule of Civil Proced ure 55, w hich

s tates that, up on entry of d ef ault, a “d ef

end ant has no f

urther s tand ing to contes t the f actual allegati o n s o f [ a ] p laintif f ’s claim f

or relief

. ” M is s. R

. Civ. P. 55 cm t. ; Ha nki ns v

. M d. Ca s. Co. / Zuri ch A m

. I

n s

. C o. , 101 So. 3d 645, 653 ( M is s

. 2012) ( relying on rule and com m ent to
conclud e that f

actual allegations w ere “uncontes ted ” up on entry of a d ef ault j ud gm ent)

.

1 5 M is s is s ip p i courts treat a d ef ault jud gm ent “as a conclus ive and f inal ad jud ication
of the is s ues neces s ary to jus ti f y t h e r e l i e f aw ard ed

. ” M is s

. R. Civ. P. 55 cm t. ; see H oga n v

. Bucki ngha m ex rel

. Bucki ngha m , 730 So. 2d 15, 20 ( M is s

. 1998) ( relying on rule and com m ent) ; Cha ssa ni ol v. Ba nk of Ki lm i cha el

, 626 So. 2d 127, 132 ( M is s

. 1993) (s am e)

. By analogy to res judi ca ta p rincip les

, an is s ue is neces s ary to jus tif y the relief aw ard ed if the jud gm ent “‘could

not have been rend ered w ithout d ecid ing the matter. ’” See M i ss. Em p

. Sec. Com m’n v

. Phi l a

. M un. Sep a ra te Sch. D i st. of N eshoba Cnty.

, 437 So. 2d 388, 401 ( M is s. 1983) ( quoting H a ri ng

v

. Prosi se , 462 U

. S. 306, 315 ( 1983) ) ; see a lso Fra nkl i n Col l ecti on S erv

. , Inc. v

. Stew a rt

, 863 So.

2d 925, 929 ( M is s

. 2003) ( ap p lying res judi ca ta p rincip les to a d ef ault j u d gm e n t )

. H ere, becaus e f

als ity w as not “neces s ary to jus tif y” the N ova Scotia Jud g m ent, it is not a “conclus ive
and f inal ad jud ication” of that is s ue.

16 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

default, 1 6 the allegations in the F i r s t A m e n d e d S t a t e m e n t o f C laim—particularly

those regarding the f

alsity of Handshoe’s statements—are not p a rticularly wellpleaded for at least three reasons.

First, the First Amended Sta t e m e n t o f C l a i m is unclear regarding whether

all, or just some, of Handshoe’s statements are false. At the outset, it indicates

that Handshoe’s statements were “d e fa m a t o ry b y b o th tru e a n d fa lse i n n u e n d o .”

(e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n e xplaining the p a rticular st a t ements at i ssue, the First

Amended Statement of Claim repeatedly emphasizes that t h e statements were
“defamatory,” in that t hey w ould tend to lower on e ’s opinion of Trout Point. 1 7

But it specifically alleges falsity with respect to o n l y a limited few of the

statements, and offers n o facts to r ebut or undermine most of Handshoe’s

statements. 1 8 Although Trout Point includes some generic allegations of falsity

1 6 A m

. Sta tes Ins. Co. v

. Rogi l l i o , 10 So. 3d 463, 467 ( M is s. 2009) ( af f irm ing a d is trict
court’s d ef

ault jud gm ent af

ter a d ef end ant f ail e d t o a n s w er or otherw is e d ef end an action)

.

1 7 Trout Point argues that Hand s hoe’s s tatem ents a r e d e f a m atory p er se

. In

M is s is s ip p i, there are f ive categories of d ef

am ation p er se : ( 1) Word s im p uting the guilt or com m is s ion of s om e crim inal of f ens e involving

m oral turp itud e and inf am ous p unis hm ent[ ; ] ( 2) Word s im p uting the exis tence
of s om e contagious dis eas e[ ; ] ( 3) Word s im puting unf i t n e s s i n an of

f icer w ho
hold s an of

fice of p rof

it or em olum ent, either in res p ect of m orals or inability to
d is charge the d uties thereof [ ; ] ( 4) W o r d s im p uting a w ant of integrity or

cap acity, w hether m ental or p ecuniary, in the cond uct of a p rof es sion, trad e or bus ines s ; and in this and s om e other juris dictions [ ; and ] ( 5) w ord s im p uting to

a f em ale a want of chas tity. Sp eed v

. Scott

, 787 So. 2d 626, 632 ( M is s

. 2001) (quoting W. T. Fa rl ey, Inc. v

. Buf ki n , 132 So.
86, 87 ( 1931) )

. Even as s um ing that s om e of the alleged statem ents are d ef am atory per se , that

s im ply m eans that Trout Point need not e s t a b l i s h sp ecial dam ages as a p rerequis ite to

recovery. Id. I t d oes not elim inate the fals ity requirem ent. Id.

1 8 Com p are, f

or exam ple, p aragrap h 54 of the Firs t Am end ed Statem ent of Claim w ith

p aragrap h 100. Paragrap h 54 alleges : “Publis hing that T rout Point Lod ge w as not d oing w ell

17 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

towards the end of its defamation claim—specifically in paragraphs 113, 115,

116, and 118—this catch-all language offers little guidance regarding whether

some or all of the statements are allegedly false, especially in light of the First

Amended Statement of Claim’s earlier r eference to “true innuendo” as a source

of harm. 1 9

For this reason, T rou t Point cannot show t h at a state or federal court in

Missis s i p p i w ould grant a default judgment based on the First A mended

Statement of Claim. Indeed, a Mississippi court has affirmed dismissal where

a complaint failed to specify which of a series of statements c onstituted slander.

Chalk v. Bertholf

, 980 So. 2d 290, 298–99 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis added)

(“Because the complaint did not contain any information as to the substance or

effect of the statements with which the a ppellants allege they were slandered,

Bertholf and Bryant w ere left with approximately two h ours w orth of radio air

time to analyze a nd attempt to g uess which parts o f the r adio s h o w t h e

appellants alleged slanderous in order to b egin their defense.”). Similarly, here,

a Mississippi c o u rt c ould deny a default judgment because the First A mended

Statement of Claim d oes not clearly a nd specifically allege that each of t he

f inancially is d ef

am atory of the corp orate p laintif f

. Public rep orts of p oor bu s i n e s s

p erf orm ance would t e n d t o l o w er the es teem of the corp orate p laintif f in the eyes of a

reas onable p ers on. ” Trout P o i n t d o es not s pecif ically allege that the s tatem ent is f als e, nor d oes it claim that, f

or exam p le, its f

inancial p erf

orm ance had no t d e c l ined

. Paragrap h 100,

on the other hand

, s ta t es : “D ef end ant H and s hoe s tates that the P laintif f Trout Point Lod ge ad vertis es heavily on T rip Ad vis or. This is d ef am atory, and untrue

, d es igned to m ak e it ap pear

as though p laintif

f is in d ire econom ic s t r aights and has res orted to d ras tic m eas ures to
ad vertis e. ” ( em p has is ad ded )

.

1 9 Trout Point als o m ak es s om e generic allegations that the statem ents w ere f als e in
rais ing its related claim s , f or exam p le, in p aragrap hs 130 and 143.

18 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

relevant statements is false.

S e c o nd, some of the publications at i ssue are statements of unverifiable

opinion. For example, Trout Point based its defama t i o n c l a i m, i n part, on the

allegation that H andshoe used “unabashed anti-gay, anti-homosexual rhetoric

a n d rants of the defendants” intended to “engender[] discrimination an d h a t r e d

. ”

The First Amended S tatement of Claim complains that Han d s h o e r eferred to

Perret a nd Leary as “‘girls,’ ‘blow buddies,’ ‘queer f -g scum,’ and ‘b-tches,’

published more than one reference to a gay-themed movie, and posted video clips

of movies and music videos commonly associated with gay stereotypes.” While

less grotesque, many of the other statements a t issue also i n v olve expressions

of opinion; for example, that Trout Point h ad “Champagne taste on a beer

budget,” that Perret and Leary were a “ l i tigious bunch,” and t hat the Nova

Scotia action was “foolish and frivolous.”

Though offensive, these s t atements g enerally are not actionable in

Mississippi. The Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized t h at “name calling

and verbal abuse are to be t aken as statements o f opinion, not fact, and therefore

will not give r ise to an action for libel.” J ohnson v. Delta-Democrat Pub. Co.

, 531

So. 2d 8 1 1

, 8 1 4 (Miss. 1 988) (collecting cases). “[N]othing in life or our law

guar a n t e e s a person i mmunity f rom occasional sharp criticism, nor should it.

. . . [N]o person avoids a f e w linguistic slings and arrows, many d e m o n s t r a bly

unfair.” Fe r

g uson v. Watkins

, 448 So. 2 d 2 71, 276 (Miss. 1984). Thus,

statements o f opinion are a ctionable “only i f they c l e arly and unmistakably

imply the allegation of undisclosed false and defamatory facts as the basis for

the opinion.” Id. ; see also Tex. Beef Grp. v. Winfrey

, 201 F

. 3d 680, 688 (5th Cir.

19 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

2000) ( “ [O]pinions, t hough strongly stated,

. . . based on truthful established fact,

. . . a re n ot actionable und e r the First Amendment.”); P eter Scalamandre &

Sons, Inc. v. Kaufman

, 113 F.3d 556, 564 ( 5th Cir. 1997) (“Defamation law

should not b e u sed as a threat to f orce i n d i v i d u a l s to muzzle their truthful,

reasonable opinions and beliefs.”). 2 0 Here, a l t h o u g h s o m e o f H a n d s h oe’s o pinions

certainly imply facts ( e.g. , t hat Trout Point was involved in the Aaron Broussard

scandal), his bare “linguistic slings and a rrows” do n ot. Indeed, counsel for

Trout Point conceded at o ral argument that Ha n d s h o e ’ s offensive insults and

opinion s t a t e m e nts would not be actionable i n Mississippi. T hus, Trout Point

cannot s h o w that a state o r federal court in M ississippi would grant a default

judgment on these opinion-based allegations.

Finally, a state o r federal court in Mississippi c o u l d view s ome of the

allegations in the First Amended Statement o f C laim a s legal c o nclusions, as

oppose d t o well-pleaded facts. The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in

DynaSteel illustrates this point. 6 1 1 S o

. 2 d a t 9 8 5

. T h e re , th e co u rt h e ld th a t

p u n itiv e d a m a g e s w e re n o t re co v e ra b l e o n a d e f a u l t judgment because the

allegations i n the c omplaint, taken as true, were insufficient to support a finding

of bad faith. Id. It stated:

A l l e g a tio n s th a t a r e in e ffe ct co n clu sio n s o f la w a re n o t co n sid e re d

w e ll-p le a d e d a lle g a tio n s, h o w e v e r, a n d a d e fe n d a n t w ill n o t b e h e ld

to h a v e a d m itte d s u ch a v e rm e n ts o n d e fa u lt. A z te c a lle g e d in its

2 0 M ere labeling of a statem ent as a “f act” or an “o p i n i o n ” i s not d is pos itive in

d eterm ining its actionabil i t y

. R o u s s e l v

. Robbi ns , 688 So. 2d 714, 723 ( M is s

. 1996)

. “A

s tatem ent, even if p hras ed as an op inion, w ill not enjoy cons titutional p rotection if the court
conclud es that its s ubs tance or gis t could reas onably be interp reted as d eclaring or im p lying

an as s ertion of f

act. ” Id

. ( quoting Keoha ne v

. Wi lkerson

, 859 P. 2d 291, 296 (Colo. 1993) )

.

20 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

co m p la in t th a t D y n a S t e e l o b stin a te ly a n d w illfu l ly re fu se d to p a y A z te c a n d th a t su c h co n d u ct co n stitu te d g ro ss b a d fa ith

. G iv e n th e le g a l sig n ifica n ce a tta ch e d to th e p h ra se s “o b stin a te a n d w illfu l

re fu sa l to p a y ” a n d “b a d fa i th r e f u sa l to p a y ”, in q u i r ie s in to th e
tru th o f a sse rtio n s a re n o t p u re l y fa c tu a l b u t a t le a st m ix e d

q u e stio n s o f la w a n d f a c t

. A l l w e ca n t a k e a s a d m itte d fro m th e se b la n k e t a sse rtio n s is th a t D y n a S te e l d id n o t p a y A zte c. T h e issu e

o f w h e th e r D y n a S t e e l ’s fa ilu re t o p a y co n s titu te d su ch b a d fa ith a s
to rise to th e le v e l o f a n in d e p e n d e n t to r t is n o t o n e th a t ca n b e
ta k e n a s a d m itte d b u t in ste a d m u st b e d e cid e d b y th e co u rt.

I d

. ( in t e rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H e re , Trout Point’s allegations of falsity a r e

unaccompanied b y any facts that contradict or otherwise u ndermine the

allegedly defamatory statements. 2 1 G iv e n th e le g a l sig n ifica n c e a tta ch e d to t h e

w o rd “fa l sity ,” M ississip p i la w re q u ire s T ro u t P o i n t to d o m o re th a n m e re ly cry

“fa lse ” to p ro v e its cla im

. 2 2 T h e re fo re , e v e n d e e m e d a d m itte d

, t h e a lle g a tio n s

lik e l y w o u ld h a v e b e e n in su fficie n t— w ith o u t su b s e q u e n t e v i d e n ce , a n a l y s is,

a n d fa ct-fin d in g

— to sa tisfy T ro u t P o in t’s b u r d e n in a M ississip p i co u rt.

F o r th e s e t h re e re a s o n s, T ro u t P o in t f a i l e d t o sh o w th a t th e a lle g a tio n s

in th e F irst A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im

, st a n d i n g a lo n e a n d ta k e n a s tru e ,

w o u ld b e su fficie n t to su p p o rt a d e fa m a tio n cla im in a M ississip p i co u rt. T ro u t

2 1 A f ed eral d is trict court in M aryland ap p lying analogous s tate law recently aw ard ed

a d ef ault jud gm ent in a d ef am ation cas e, but only af ter d eterm ining that “the com p laint not only alleges that thes e s tatem ents f rom the Article are ‘untrue, ’ it als o s ets forth a variety of

f acts that, w hen tak en in the light m os t favorable to Plaintif f s, t e n d to s how that G AP is a legitim ate, governm ent- ap p roved p rogram

. Fals ity of the above s tatem ents i s t h eref ore

p rop erly alleged

. ” Russel l v

. Ra i l ey , N o. D K C- 08- 2468, 2012 WL 1190972, at *4 ( D. M d

. Ap r. 9, 2012)

.

2 2 Becaus e s tatem ents that are “s ubs tantially true” are not actionable in M is s is s ip p i,

w hether a s tatem ent is f als e as a technical m atter m ay dif fer f rom w hether it is “f

als e” as a legal m atter.

21 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

P o in t a sse rts a s e c o n d g r o u n d to e sta b lish fa lsity

, h o w e v e r: th e N o v a S co tia

C o u rt’s p u rp o rte d fa ctu a l fin d in g s th a t H a n d sh o e ’s sta te m e n ts w e re fa lse a n d

m a licio u s. W e tu rn n e x t to th a t issu e

.

2

.
A s a th re sh o ld m a tte r, th e p la in l a n g u a g e o f th e S P E E C H A ct su g g e sts

th a t th e p u rp o rte d “fa ctu a l fin d in g s” 2 3 o f th e N o v a S co tia C o u rt a re irre le v a n t

to th e e n fo rce a b ility in q u iry

. T h e critica l q u e stio n is n o t w h e t h e r th e N o v a

S co tia C o u rt fo u n d f

a lsity

, b u t ra th e r w h e th e r a sta te o r fe d e r a l co u rt in

M ississip p i f

a ce d w ith th e a lle g a tio n s in t h e F irst A m e n d e d S t a te m e n t o f C la im

w o u ld h a v e d o n e so

. S ee § 4 1 0 2 (a )(1 )(B ) (re q u irin g th e p a rty se e k in g to e n fo rce

th e fo re ig n d e fa m a tio n ju d g m e n t t o e sta b lish th a t th e d e fe n d a n t “w o u ld h a v e

b e e n fo u n d lia b le fo r d e fa m a tio n b y a d o m e s tic c o u r t a p p ly in g th e [F ]irst

[A ]m e n d m e n t to th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d th e co n s titu t io n a n d

la w o f th e S ta te i n w h ich th e d o m e sti c c o u rt is lo c a te d ”). M o re o v e r, th e N o v a

S co tia C o u rt issu e d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s a t a d a m a g e s h e a rin g th a t o ccu rre d a fter

it h a d a lre a d y g ra n te d d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f T ro u t P o in t.

B u t e v e n a s su m in g , a rg u en d o , th a t th e N o v a S c o t ia C o u rt’s fa ctu a l

fin d in g s h a v e so m e b e a rin g o n th e e n fo r ce a b ility in q u i ry , th e y a re i n su fficie n t

to d e m o n stra te f

a lsity

. A s th e d istrict co u rt s u m m a rize d

, th e N o v a S co tia

C o u rt’s o r a l d e cisio n “d o e s n o t co n t a in s p e cific fin d i n g s o f f a ct w ith re sp e ct to

th e fa lsity o f H a n d sh o e ’s sta te m e n ts.” I n d e e d

, d e sp ite re p e a te d e n tre a tie s a t

2 3 The N ova Scotia Court d id not is s ue f orm al f ind ings of f

act. Rather, it com m ented

on the evid ence in the cours e of is s uing an oral op inion aw ard ing Trout Point com p ens atory, aggravated

, and p unitive d a ma g e s. W e as s um e a rguendo that the court’s com m ents cons titute
f actual f ind ings

.

22 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

o ra l a rg u m e n t, T ro u t P o in t co u ld n o t id e n tify a sin g le sp e c i fic a l le g a tio n in t h e

S ta te m e n t o f C la im th a t t h e N o v a S co tia C o u rt fo u n d w a s a ctu a l l y fa lse

.

R a th e r , t h e N o v a S co tia C o u rt n o te d g e n e rica lly th a t s o m e sta te m e n ts w e re

“e rro n e o u s,” b u t r e m a in e d sile n t a s to th e tru t h o f o th e rs. 2 4 T h e o n ly sta te m e n t

w ith a rg u a b ly g lo b a l re a ch i s th a t H a n d sh o e ’s co n d u ct w a s “o u tra g e o u s ” in t h e

“fa ce o f tr u e f

a c t s” a b o u t T ro u t P o in t. T h i s sim p ly is n o t d ire ct e n o u g h to

co n s titu te a m e a n i n g fu l fa ctu a l fin d in g th a t a ll o f H a n d sh o e ’ s sta te m e n ts w e re

fa lse

. 2 5

In a n a ly zin g th e N o v a S co tia C o u rt’s o ra l o p in i o n a n d p u rp o r te d fa ctu a l

fin d in g s , it is i m p o r ta n t to n o te th a t t h e co u r t b a s e d its d a m a g e s a w a rd o n

a lle g a t io n s a n d e v id e n c e th a t a M ississip p i c o u rt w o u ld n o t h a v e cre d ite d

. F o r

o n e , th e N o v a S co tia C o u r t co n sid e r e d n u m e ro u s sta te m e n ts th a t d id n o t

a p p e a r i n t h e F irst A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o f C la im

, m a n y o f w h i c h o c c u rre d a fter

2 4 Com p a re, e. g

. , “The p laintif f s w ere erroneous ly id entif ied a s b e i n g c o n n e c t e d wi t h M r. Brous s ard in a bus ines s venture and M r. Brous sard w as nam ed in error as ow ning Trout Point

Lod ge, ” w i th “The d ef am ation continued w ith statem ents that Trout Point Lod ge w as los ing
bus ines s or going bank rup t becaus e of the inves tigation of M r. Brous s ard and his inability to
continue to s up port it.

. . . The s tatem ents als o contained anti- gay rhetoric and hom op hobic

com m ents

. ”

2 5 Trout P oint em p has ized that certain evid ence, s p ecif ically, af f id avits and tes tim ony by Perret and Leary, d em ons trated the f als ity of H and s hoe’s statem ents

. B ut this evid ence, lik e the p urp orted f

actual f ind ings

, w as ad m itted at the d am ages hearing a f ter the N ova Scotia
Court had alread y is s ued the N ova Scotia Jud gm ent. Even if w e cons id er this evid ence, it s till

d oes not es tablis h that a l l of the alleged s tatem ents w ere, in fact, fals e. M oreover, it ref ers to

num erous s tatem ents of op inion and p ublications that p os t- d ated the Firs t Am end ed
Statem ent of Claim

. Thus

, f or es s entially the s am e reas ons dis cus s ed above, w e hold that the
evid ence Trout Point cites is ins uf f icient to s how that Trout Point w ould hav e b een entitled

to relief in a M is s is s ip p i court.

23 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

T r o u t P o in t file d its ca s e

. 2 6 In M ississip p i

, a “d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t m a y n o t e x te n d

to m a tte rs o u tsid e th e issu e s ra ise d b y th e p le a d in g s o r b e y o n d t h e sco p e o f t h e

re lie f d e m a n d e d .” 2 7 M iss. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 4 (c) cm t. In d e e d

, T ro u t P o in t itse lf

a ck n o w le d g e s th a t “e a ch co m m u n i ca tio n o f th e sa m e d e fa m a to ry m a tte r b y t h e

sa m e d e f

a m e r, w h e th e r to a n e w p e r so n o r to th e sa m e p e rso n , is a s e p a ra te a n d

d istin ct p u b l i ca tio n , fo r w h ich a se p a ra te ca u se o f a ctio n a rise s.” T h u s, a

Mi s s issip p i co u rt w o u ld n o t g ra n t re lie f b a se d o n sta te m e n ts th a t d id n o t a ppear

in t h e p l a in tiffs’ co m p la in t. M o re o v e r, th e N o v a S co tia C o u rt a w a rd e d d a m a g e s

b a se d o n th e n a m e -ca llin g a n d v e rb a l a b u se d iscu sse d a b o v e , w h ich is n o t

a ctio n a b le in M ississip p i

. In su m , m u c h o f th e co n d u ct th a t u n d e rlie s th e N o v a

S co tia C o u rt’s o ra l o p in io n a n d d a m a g e s a w a rd w o u ld n o t g iv e r ise to re lie f in

M ississip p i.

IV

.

B efore we conclude, we note that the SPEECH A ct also cont a i n s a
“jurisdictional consideratio n s ” provision, which requires “the party seeking

recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment” to show that “the exercise

of personal jurisdiction by the for e i g n court comported w ith the due process

requirements that are imposed o n domestic c ourts by the Constitu t i o n o f the

United States.” § 4102(b).

2 6 For exam p le, the N ova Scotia Court noted in its oral op inion that “f urther def

am atory

com m ents w ere m ad e earlier this m onth, w hen the Notice of As s es s m e n t of D am ages w as

s erved on [ H and s hoe]

. ”

27 For this reas on, we d o not look to the content of the p ublications (beyond w ha t i s

s p ecif ically alleged in the Firs t Am end ed Statem ent of Claim ) to d eterm ine whether a s tate

or fed eral court in M is sis s ip p i w ould have f ound Hand s hoe liable f or d ef am ation.

24 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/05/2013No. 13-60002

Handshoe asserts t hat Trout P oint also failed t o s a t isfy this provision

because the N ova Scotia Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him did

n o t c omport with o ur nation’s due process requirements. He makes a stron g

argument that Nova Scotia was not t he “focal p o i n t ” o f the s tatements that

preceded the First Amended Statement of Claim. Cf. Calder v

. Jones

, 465 U.S.

783, 788– 9 0 ( 1 9 84). But we, like the district court, need not resolve whether

Handshoe had the requisite minimum contacts with Nova Scotia at the time that

Trout Point filed suit, as Trout Point’s f ailure to satisfy the First Amendment

considerations provision of the SPEECH Act is fatal to its claim.

V.

For the above-stated reasons, T rout Point f a i led to sa tisfy its b u rd e n to

sh o w th a t e ith e r (1 ) C a n a d ia n la w o ffe r s a s m u ch f re e sp e e ch p ro t e ctio n a s t h e

U n ite d S ta te s C o n stitu tio n a n d M i ssissip p i sta t e la w , o r (2 ) a M ississip p i co u rt

p re se n t e d w ith th e s a m e fa cts a n d circu m sta n ce s w o u ld h a v e f o u n d H a n d sh o e

lia b le fo r d e fa m a tio n

. A cco r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a t th e N o v a S co tia J u d g m e n t is

u n re co g n iza b le a n d u n e n fo rce a b le . W e A F F IR M

.

25 Case: 13-60002 Document: 00512364014 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/05/2013