## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 1- 19 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Turk is h C oa li ti on of Am eri ca, In c.; S in an Cin gi ll i,

App el la nt s,

v.

Ro be rt B ru in in ks , in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty; Bru no Ch ao ua t, i n h is in di vi du al
cap aci ty; Uni ve rs it y

of M in ne so ta , App el le es

.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Ru th erfo rd Ins ti tu te ,

Am ic us on be ha lf o f App el la nt s,

Caro l L. Ch om sk y ; J en ni fer Green ; Ro be rt A. St ei n, Dea n; Dav id Sam

ue l Weis sb ro dt
, Pro fes so rs Co nc ern ed for Acad em ic Free do m ,

Am ic i o n b eh al f of App el le es

. *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 12 Fil ed : M ay

3, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Si na n Ci ng il li
, a st ud en t at th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi nn es ot a, an d Turk is h Co al it io n of Am eri ca, Inc. (“ TCA”), a no n- pr of it co rp or at io n th at pr ov id es in fo rm at io n abo ut th e na ti on of Turk ey an d Turk is h- Am eri can s, ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of
th ei r res pe ct iv e Fi rs t Am en dm en t clai m s and TCA’s st at e-l aw de fam at io n cl ai m fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

. W e affi rm wit h res pe ct to TCA’s F i r s t Am en dm en t an d de fam at io n cl ai m s. W it h res pe ct to Ci ng il li ’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m , we va cat e an d

rem an d fo r di sm is sa l d ue to lac k o f st an di ng

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Defen da nt Pro fes so r Bru no Ch ao ua t di rect s th e Ce n t er fo r Hol oc au st an d
Gen oc id e St u di es (“ Cen te r”) at th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi nn es ot a. Pri or to Nov em be r 20 10
, th e Cen te r’s web si te di sp la y ed a li st of “ Unr el ia bl e W eb si te s.” The pr efac e to th e li st st at ed :

W e do no t reco m

m en d t h e s e s it es

. W arn in gs sh ou ld be gi ve n to st ud en ts writ in g pa pe rs th at th ey sh ou ld no t us e th es e si te s be cau se of de ni al
, su pp or t by an u nk no wn or ga ni zat io n, or co nt en ts th at are a st ran ge m ix of fact an d op in io n. W e al so do no t ad vi se us in g si te s wit h

ex ces si ve ad ve rti si ng

.

-2

-The “ Unr el ia bl e W eb si te s” li st in cl ud ed web si te s di sp ut in g th e fact ua li ty of th e Nazi

ge no ci de of Je ws du rin g W or ld W ar II an d th e Turk is h ge no ci de of Arm en ia ns du rin g W or ld W ar I. It m en ti on ed no web si te s rel at in g to ot he r ge no ci de s, al th ou gh it li st ed

ge ne ral in te rn et refe ren ce so u rces su ch as W ik ip ed ia an d Abo ut .co m

. The fir st

“ Unr el ia bl e Webs it e” o n t he li st was t ha t o f TCA. In la te 20 08 or earl y 20 09 , TCA

se nt a le tt er to th e un iv ers it y al le gi ng t h a t t h e in cl us io n of TCA’s we bs it e, co up le d wit h th e wa r n i n g t o st ud en ts , vi ol at ed th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t. The un iv ers it y

res po nd ed in Aug us t 2 00 9 t ha t t he li st in g was m erel y th e Cen te r’s op in io n a nd th at
st ud en ts rem ai ne d fr ee t o a cces s t he TCA webs it e.

Acco rd in g to th e Co m

pl ai nt , on Nov em

be r 5, 20 10
, Ci ng il li
, th en a fres hm an
at th e un iv ers it y , so ug ht ou t Pro f e s s o r C h ao ua t an d as ke d ab ou t us in g th e TCA web si te “ in co nju n c t i o n w it h a res earc h pa pe r.” Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t “ st ro ng ly di sc ou rag ed ” su ch us e of th e web si te an d “ rep eat ed ly refu se d to de ny th at th ere wou ld be acad em ic co ns eq ue nc es ” fo r Ci ng il li if he di d so

. Ci ng il li was “ afra id to us e” th e TCA web si te aft er th is ex ch an ge

. Not ab ly, ho wev er, th e Co m pl ai nt do es no t su gg es t th at Ci ng il li was en ro ll ed in a cl as s wit h Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t or th at th e pr of es so r was
ot he rwis e in a po si ti on to affe ct Cin gi ll i’s g rad es or a cad em ic st an di ng

.

Fo ll owi ng C i n g il li ’s m eet in g wit h Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t, TCA se nt a de m an d le tt er to th e un iv ers it y wit h a dr aft co m pl ai nt at ta ch ed

. On Nov em be r 18
, 20 10
, th e Cen te r rev is ed it s web si te , rem ov in g th e l is t of un rel ia bl e web si te s an d of feri ng

“ reco m m en de d” res ou rces in st ead

. The un iv ers it y se nt a le tt er to TCA de nyin g th at th e ch an ge was m o ti va te d by th e de m an d le tt er an d de nyin g an y wro ng do in g. The le tt er al so st at ed th at th e un iv ers it y wou ld “ no t pe rm it an y ki nd of ret al ia ti on ” ag ai ns t Ci ng il li an d th at al l st ud en ts “ are ev al ua te d ba se d up on th e qu al it y of th ei r acad em ic

wor k.” Arti cl es ab ou t th e di sp ut e ap pe ared in two ne wsp ap ers , an d on Nov em be r 24
, P r o f e s s or Ch ao ua t po st ed a “ Res po ns e to ‘U nr el ia bl e W eb si te s’” on th e Cen te r’s web si te

. The r e s p o n s e st at ed th at th e “ Unr el ia bl e W eb si te s” li st was rem ov ed

-3

-be cau se Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t di d no t wan t to “ pr o mo te , ev en ne ga ti ve ly, so ur ces of

il le gi ti m at e in fo rm at io n.”

A we ek la te r, TCA an d Ci ng il l i f i l e d th is su it al le gi ng va rio us co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s an d sta

te -l aw de fa

m atio n ag ai ns t th e un iv ers it y , it s pr es id en t Ro be rt Bruinin ks,

an d Prof es so r Ch ao ua t. The di st ric t cou rt di sm is se d all cl ai m s fo r fai lu re to st at e a 1
cl ai m un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced u r e 1 2( b) (6 ), ho ld in g th at th e do ct rin e of acad em ic free do m pr ot ect ed th e act io ns of a l l de fen da nt s an d th at th e al le ge d de fam at or y st at em en ts were so le ly m at te rs of op in io n. The di st ric t co ur t al so st at ed
th at “ it do es no t ap pe ar” th at th e req ui rem en ts of Arti cl e III st an di ng were sa ti sf ie d,
al th ou gh it di d no t an al y ze th e is su e. TCA an d Ci ng il li ap pe al on ly th e di sm is sa l of
th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d d efam at io n c la im s.

II

. Sta ndi ng

The di st ric t co ur t erre d in as su m in g wit ho ut de ci di ng th at th e req ui rem en ts of

st an di ng were m et , be cau se “ s t a n d i ng is a juri sd ic ti on al pr ereq ui si te th at m us t be

res ol ve d be fo re reac hi ng th e m eri ts of a su it .” Ci ty of Cl ar ks on Val le y v. Min et a , 49 5
F.3 d 56 7, 56 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). In ad dr es si n g st an di ng , “ th e co ur t m us t acce pt al l fact ua l al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai nt as t ru e an d d raw al l in fere nc es in th e p la in ti ff’s fav or .” Y ou ng Am. Co rp

. v. Aff

il i a t e d Co mpu te r Se rv s. (ACS ), In c. , 42 4 F.3 d 84 0,
84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). St an d i n g r eq ui res (1 ) an in jury th at is “ co nc ret e an d

pa rti cu la riz ed ” an d “ act ua l or im m in en t, no t co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al ,” (2 ) th at th e in jury “ be fai rly trace ab le to th e ch al le ng ed act io n of th e de fen da nt ,” an d (3 ) th at it is “ li ke ly, as op po se d to m erel y sp ecu l at iv e, th at th e in jury wil l be red res se d by a

The Co m pl ai nt so ug ht d a mag es on th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s ag ai ns t so le ly 1 P r e s i de nt Bru in in ks an d Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. S e e T re le ven v. Uni v. of Min n. , 73 F.3 d 81 6, 81 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [T]he Uni ve rs i t y o f Mi nn es ot a is an in st ru m en ta li ty of th e st at e a n d e nt it le d to sh are in th e st at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y .”).

-4

-fav or ab le de ci si on .” Rep ub li ca n Par ty of Min n., Th ir d Co ng

. Dis t. v. Kl ob uc ha r , 38 1
F.3 d 78 5, 79 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Lu ja n v. Defe nd er

s o f Wild li fe , 5 04 U.S.
55 5, 5 59 -6 1 (1 99 2) ).

A. Ci ng il li

C i n g i l li m ak es no al le ga ti on th at th e de fen da nt s ha ve ta ke n an y act io n to
pr ev en t h im fro m acce ss in g th e TCA web si te at hi s will

. In st ead
, he al le ge s t ha t h e fear s ret al ia ti on , in t h e fo rm of lo wered gr ad es or ot he r de tri m en t to hi s acad em ic

st an di ng , if he us es th e web si te fo r a res earc h pa pe r. He rel ie s on th e pr op os it io n th at , in th e co nt ex t of a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m , “ act ua l in jury ca n e x i s t fo r st an di ng
pu rp os es ev en if th e pl ai nt iff ha s no t en ga ge d in th e pr oh ib it ed ex pr es si on as lo ng as th e pl ai nt iff is ob

jecti ve ly rea so na bl y ch i l l e d fro m ex erci si ng hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht to free ex pr es si on in or de r to av oi d en fo rcem en t co ns eq ue nc es .” Id

. at 79 2. His

arg um en t f

ai ls
, ho wev er, be cau se th e Co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge th at Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t h as an y

ab il it y what so ev er t o i nf

lu en ce Ci ng il li ’s acad em ic st an di ng

.

In hi s rep ly br ie f, Ci ng il li ur ge s th at , de sp it e an ab se nc e of co nt ro l ov er an y of Ci ng il li ’s gr ad es , Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t m ig ht be ab le to affe ct hi s acad em ic st an di ng be cau se “ pr of

es so rs reg ul arl y co m

m un ic at e to on e an ot he r ab ou t wor k- rel at ed is su es ,
su ch as

. . . tro ub le so m e st ud en ts .” Eve n tre at in g th is ge ne ro us ly as an in fere nc e on e

m ig ht dr aw fro m th e Co m pl ai nt , it is far to o sp ecu la ti ve to es ta bl is h an ob je ct iv el y

re as on ab le ch il li ng effe ct

. Se e Kl ob uc ha r , 38 1 F. 3 d at 79 1- 92

. As we no te d in a

s i mi l a r si tu at io n, “ Pl ai nt iff s cl ai m th at th ey ha ve th or ou gh ly d es cri be d why .

. . t h e
st at ut e co ul d be eas il y m an ip ul at ed
, an d th e po ss ib le m ot iv es po li ce m ay ha ve to [d o

so ]

. . . . Eve n s o, t he y

fai l i n t he ke y

res pe ct of a ss ert in g t ha t p eace off ic ers in fa ct in it ia te ret al ia to ry pr os ecu ti on

. . . .” Za nd er s v. Sw an so n , 57 3 F.3 d 59 1, 59 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (fi nd in g no st an di ng fo r pl ai nt iff s’ Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m s)

. Lik ewis e, in th e in st an t cas e, t h ere are no fact ua l al le ga ti on s th at Pro fes so r Ch ao ua t or ot he r
pr of es so rs at th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi nn e s o t a i n f a c t reac h ou t to lo wer th e gr ad es of

-5

-“ tro ub le so m e” st ud en ts in cl as se s ta ug ht by ot h ers

. In th e sa m e fas hi on , whi le

Pres id en t Bru in in ks co nc ei va bl y co ul d in te rv en e to lo wer Ci ng il li ’s g rad es or de ny hi m ot he r acad em ic be ne fit s, th ere is no al le ga ti on th at he in fa ct en ga ge s i n su ch

p r a c ti ces

. As a res ul t, Ci ng il li ha s no t “ nu dg ed [h is ] cl ai m s acro ss th e li ne f r o m

co nc ei va bl e to pl au si bl e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bell Atl

. Co rp

. v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ).

Bec au se Ci n g i l li fai ls to pl ead fact s su ffi ci en t to de m on st rat e an ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le ch il li ng effe ct , he ha s no t es ta bl is he d st an di ng t o p u r s ue a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m

un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces

.

B. TCA

TCA arg ue s th at it ha s st an di ng to pu rs ue a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m be cau se th e la be li ng o f i t s w e bs it e as “ un rel ia bl e,” an d th e in cl us io n of it on th e sa m e li st as web si te s deny in g th e Hol oc au st pe rp et rat ed by th e Nazi s in W or ld W ar II, st ig m at iz ed
TCA. TCA rel ie s on Mees e v. Kee ne , 48 1 U.S. 46 5 (1 98 7)
, in whi ch a C a l i f o r ni a
at to rn ey se rv in g as a st at e se na to r wis he d to sh ow Can ad ia n fil m s pu rp or ti ng to ad dr es s th e effe ct s of nu cl ear war an d aci d rai n. Bec au se th e fil m s m et th e de fin it io n

o f “pol it ic al pr op ag an da ” un de r th e Fo rei gn Age nt s Reg is tra ti on Act of 19 38
, ho wev er, th e st at e se na to r fear ed da m ag e to hi s pu bl ic rep ut at io n as a “ di ss em in at or of fo rei gn po li ti cal p r o p a ga nd a.” Id

. at 46 7. He fil ed su it on Fi rs t Am en dm en t
gr ou nd s t o e njo in th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e Act . The Co ur t ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t t he Act di d “ no t ha ve a di rect effe ct on th e ex erci se of hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s” be cau se it di d “ no t pr ev en t hi m f r o m ob ta in in g or ex hi bi ti ng th e fil m s.” Id

. at 47 3.
Nev ert he le ss , th e Co ur t fo un d th at he al le ge d a c o g n i z ab le in jury ba se d on hi s al le ga ti on th at “ hi s pe rs on al
, po li ti cal
, an d pr of es si on al rep ut at io n wou ld su ffer an d
hi s ab il it y to ob ta in re-e le ct io n an d to pr act ic e hi s pr of es si on wou ld be im

pa ire d.” Id

.

-6

-Sev eral co ur ts ha ve fo un d th at , un d e r M ees e , a no n- pr of

it or ga ni zat io n th at al le g e s an in

jury to rep ut at io n th ro ug h st ig m at iz in g go ve rn m en t sp eech ha s Arti cl e III s ta nd in g t o b rin g a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im :

The fact th at an in

jury to th e rep ut at io n of an or g a n i z a t i on su ch as SMHA can se rv e as a ba si s fo r st an di ng ha s be en reco gn iz ed at le as t si nc e Jo in t An ti -Fas ci st Refu ge e Co mmit te e v. McGr at h , 34 1 U.S. 1 23 (1 95 1) (p lu ral it y op in io n)

. In th at cas e , t h e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed th at th e effe ct of de si gn at in g th e co m pl ai ni ng or ga ni zat io ns as “ Co m m un is t”

was to “ c r i p p l e t he fu nc ti on in g an d da m ag e th e rep ut at io n of th os e

or ga ni zat io ns in th ei r res pe ct iv e co m m un it ie s an d in th e na ti on .” Id

. at 13 9 (p rin ci pa l o pi ni on ) (Bu rto n, J .); se e id

. at 1 40 -4 1.

S. Mut

. Help Ass ’n

, In c. v. Ca li fa no , 57 4 F.2 d 51 8, 52 4 (D.C. C i r

. 1 9 7 7 ) ; s e e al so Rig gs v. Ci ty of Alb uq ue rq ue , 91 6 F.2 d 58 2, 58 3- 85 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 90 ) (h ol di ng th at pl ai nt iff “ po li ti cal ly act iv e or ga ni zat io ns who
, it was al le ge d, ha ve of te n ta ke n

co nt ro ve rs ia l an d un po pu la r po si tions” ple d a co gn iz ab le in jury fo r st an di ng pu rp os es whe re t he y

“ al le ge [d ] ha rm

to th ei r pe rs on al
, po li ti cal
, an d pro fes si on al rep ut at io ns in th e co m

m un it y ”). W e ag ree th at TCA si m il arl y ha s pl ed a co gn iz ab le in jury he re. As a re su lt , TCA has st an di ng to pu rs ue it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m

.

II I. TCA’s Firs t Am endment Cla im

Alt ho ug h it ha s st an di n g , TC A n ev ert he le ss fai ls to st at e a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). The gr an t of a mo t io n to di sm is s is rev ie wed de no vo

. Owen v. Gen

. Mot or

s Co rp

. , 53 3 F.3 d 91 3, 91 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ To su rv iv e a m ot io n
to di sm is s, a co m

pl ai nt mu s t c o nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .’ ” Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l
, 55 6 U.S. 66 2,
67 8 (2 00 9) (qu ot in g Bell

Atl . Cor p. , 55 0 U.S. at 57 0)

.

-7

-TC A c on te nd s th at an ad vo cacy or ga ni zat io n’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht t o

ex pr es s it s id eas , as well as th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s of ot he rs to r e c e iv e th os e id eas , are vi ol at ed whe n a st at e un iv ers it y pr of es so r op in es th at th e or ga ni zat io n’s

m at eri al s are un rel ia bl e an d warn s st ud en ts th at us in g th os e m at eri al s in a res earc h

pa pe r wil l res ul t in ba d gr ad es

. To su pp or t it s co nt en ti on , TCA rel ie s pr im ari ly up on th ree Su pr em e Co ur t cas es

. Exa m in in g each of th os e th ree c a s e s i n t u r n, ho wev er,

co nv in ces us th at th e co m pl ai ne d- of co nd uc t, wit ho ut m or e, do es no t ris e to th e le ve l of a Fi rs t Am en dm en t v io la ti on

.

Fi rs t, TC A r e l i es on Boa rd of Edu ca ti on , Is la nd Tr ees Uni on Free Sc ho ol
Dis tr ic t No

. 26 v. Pico
, 45 7 U.S. 85 3 (1 98 2)
, in whi ch se co n d a r y s c h o ol st ud en ts ch al le ng ed a sc ho ol bo ard ’s rem ov al of cert ai n bo ok s fro m sc ho ol li br ari es

. In Pico
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t, ci ti ng th e “ rig ht to rece iv e id eas ,” id

. at 86 7, rul ed th at th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t was vi ol at ed if th e sc ho ol bo ard m em be rs “ in te nd ed by th ei r r e mo v a l de ci si on to de ny [s tu de nt s] acce ss to id eas wit h whi ch [th e sc ho ol bo ard ] di sa gr eed
,
an d i f t h i s i n t e n t was th e de ci si ve fact or in [th e] d eci si on ,” id

. at 87 1. TCA arg ue s th at , fo ll owi ng Pico
, th ey ha ve st at ed a Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m wit h th ei r al le ga ti on th at t h e Cen te r’s in te nt in warn in g st ud en ts ab ou t th e TCA web si te was to de ny

acce ss to id eas wit h wh ic h t he Cen te r di sa gr eed

.

The ke y di st in ct io n in Pico is th at th e bo ok s act ua ll y were re mov ed fro m th e li br ari es , su bs ta nt ia ll y im pa iri ng th e st u d e n t s’ ab il it y to acce ss th e id eas th ey

co nt ai ne d. Se e id

. at 86 6 (“ [T]he St at e m ay no t, co ns is t e n t l y w i t h th e sp iri t of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, co nt ract th e sp ect ru m of av ai la bl e kn owl ed ge .” (q uo ti ng Gris wo ld

v. Co nn ect ic ut , 38 1 U.S. 47 9, 48 2 (1 96 5) )). Here, in c o nt ras t, “ th e sp ect ru m of

av ai la bl e kn owl ed ge ” fo r st ud en ts at th e un iv ers it y was un affe ct e d

. The re is no

a l l e g at io n th at th e de fen da nt s im pa ire d st ud en ts ’ acce ss to th e TCA web si te o n a

un iv ers it y -p ro vi de d in te rn et syste m

. The re is no hi nt in th e Co m pl ai nt th at un iv ers it y
st ud en ts were no t free to , fo r ex am pl e, read th e TCA web si te , em ai l m at eri al fro m th e TCA web si te to th ei r fri en ds
, reg al e pa ss ers -b y on th e si de walk wit h qu ot es fro m th e

-8

-TCA web si te , an d so fo rth

. In sh or t, TCA’s web si te was no t “ r e mov ed ” fro m th e

un iv ers it y

in an y sen se

.

Seco nd
, TCA rel ie s on Ban ta m Boo ks

, In c. v. Su ll iv an , 37 2 U.S. 58 (1 96 3)
, in whi ch bo ok pu bl is he rs ch al le ng ed a st at e st at ut e em po weri ng th e “ Rh od e Is la nd
Co m m is si on to Enc ou rag e Mo ral it y in You th ” to de c l a re cert ai n bo ok s to be

“ ob jecti on ab le .” Id

. at 61

. W he n th e Co m m is si on id en ti fie d an ob

jecti on ab le bo ok
, it no ti fie d th e in -s ta te who le sa le di st rib ut or of th e bo ok th at th e Co mm i s s i o n h a d a du ty to reco m

m en d pr os ecu ti on if th e Co m m is si on vi ewed th e bo ok as ob sc en e. Id

. at 62

. The Co m

m is si on typic al ly se nt lo cal po li ce of fic ers to in qu ire wha t act io ns th e di st rib ut or to ok as a res ul t of th e no ti ce. Id

. at 63

. Dis tr i b u t o rs su bjec te d to th is

pr act ic e ro ut in el y de ci de d to ceas e th ei r di st rib ut io n of th e ch al le ng ed bo ok wit ho ut wait in g t o s ee i f pr os ecu ti on was re co m m en de d. Id

. at 6 3- 64

.

TCA co nt en ds th at he re, as in Ban ta m Boo ks
, whi le th e s t a te act or di d no t di rect ly bl oc k acce ss to th e di sf av or ed m at eri al
, th e st at e act or ’s act io ns ch il le d ot he rs in to av oi di ng th e m at eri al s. Im po rta nt ly, ho wev er, th e Co ur t in Ban ta m Boo ks fo un d

a vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t on ly be cau se th e go ve r n men t act or ’s “ act s an d

pr act ic es di rect ly an d de si gn ed ly st opped the ci rcul at io n of pu bl ic at io ns in m an y pa rts of Rh od e Is la nd .” Id

. at 68

. In ot he r wor ds
, in 19 63
, if a bo ok ’s who le sa le di st rib ut or de ci de d no t to di st rib ut e it
, it be cam e ph y si cal ly un av ai la bl e. In co nt ras t, as di sc us se d ab ov e, th ere is no al le ga ti on th at th e ch a ll en ge d act io ns he re m ad e TCA’s web si te

un av ai la bl e to st ud en ts at t he un iv ers it y

.

Fi na ll y , TCA c o nt en ds th at Mees e v. Kee ne es ta bl is he d th e pr op os it io n th at

“ [g ]ove rn m en t as pe rs io n on sp eech to cas t su sp ic io n on it s cred ib il it y wit h an act ua l

or po te nt ia l aud ie nc e is a co gn iz ab le Fi rs t Am en dm en t res tri ct io n.” W hi le th e st at e

se na to r in Mees e su cces sf ul ly es ta bl is he d st an di ng , ho wev er, hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng e fai le d on th e m eri ts b e c a u s e th e Act di d “ no t po se an y ob st acl e to [h is ]

acce ss to th e m at eri al s h e wis he s t o e xh ib it .” 48 1 U.S. at 48 0. Lik ewis e, he re the re

-9

-is no ob st acl e to acce ss in g an y m at eri al s TCA wis he s to ex hi bi t on it s web si te ; th ere

is m erel y an ob st acl e to ci ta ti on of th e m at eri al in st ud en t s ’ res earc h pa pe rs

. Sch oo lwo rk su bm it te d fo r gr ad in g is de si gn ed to pl eas e an au di en ce of on e—t he

gr ad er— an d TCA’s at te m pt to cas t th is na rro w res tri ct io n on re-u se of it s m at eri al as

a un iv ers al ba n on di st rib ut io n is un su pp or ta bl e. W hi le th e Cen te r warn ed ag ai ns t th at na rro w type of re-u se , it “ pl ace[ d] no bu rd en on pr ot ect ed ex pr es si on ” by TCA.
Se e id

.

In li gh t of th e ab se nc e of al le ga ti on s th at th e ch al l e n g e d act io ns po se d an ob st acl e to st ud en ts ’ acce ss to th e mat eri al s on TCA’s web si te or m ad e th os e

m at eri al s su bs ta nt ia ll y un av ai la bl e at th e un i ve rs it y , th e Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l of TCA’s Firs t Am en dm en t cl ai m m us t b e affi rm ed

.

IV. TCA’s Defa m at io n Cla im

TCA al le ge s th at th e de fen da nt s de fam ed it by st at in g th at TCA’s web si te (1 )

en ga ge s in “ de ni al ” of th e Arm en ia n ge no ci de in Turk ey du rin g W or ld W ar I, (2 ) is

“ un rel ia bl e,” (3 ) pr es en ts a “ st ran ge m ix of fact an d op in io n ,” an d (4 ) is an

“ il le gi ti m at e so ur ce o f in fo rm at io n.” The d efen da nt s co un te r, an d t he di st ric t cou rt
ag reed
, th at th es e are st at em en ts of op in io n, rat he r th an fact
, an d th us can no t su pp or t a cl ai m of d efam at io n.

Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, “ [a] st at em en t is de f a mat or y if it (1 ) ha s be en

co m m un ic at ed to a th ird pa rty; (2 ) is fal se ; an d (3 ) te nd s to ha rm th e in di vi du al ’s

rep ut at io n an d l o w e r s h i m or he r in th e co m m un it y ’s es ti m at io n.” Ger ac i v. Ecka nk ar , 52 6 N.W .2d 39 1, 39 7 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 95 ). W it h reg ard to th e el em en t of fal si ty, “ [t]ru th is a co m

pl et e de fen se , and tru e st at em en ts , ho wev er d is pa rag in g,

are no t act io na bl e.” Fol ey v. W CCO Te le vi si on , Inc

. , 44 9 N.W.2d 4 97 , 50 0 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 89 ). Not ab ly, “ st at em en ts ab ou t m at te rs of pu bl ic co nc ern no t cap ab le of be in g pr ov en tru e or fal se an d st at em e n t s th at can no t be in te rp ret ed reas on ab ly as

-1 0-st at in g fact s are pr ot ect ed fro m de fam at io n act io ns un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t.”

Ger ac i , 52 6 N.W .2d at 39 7. W he th er a st at em en t can be in te rp ret ed as st at in g fact s is a qu es ti on of l aw. Id.

W it h reg ard to th e fir st ch al le ng ed st at em en t , TC A a rg ue s th at th e Cen te r’s

accu sa ti on of “ de ni al ” is fal se be cau se th e te rm “ de ni al ,” in th e co nt ex t of gen oc id e
st ud ie s, is a te rm of art th at im pl ie s de ni al of well -d oc um en te d un d e r l yi n g fact s

a s s o ci at ed wit h a ge no ci da l ev en t. TCA po in ts ou t th at it s web si te do es no t d e n y
cert ai n un de rlyin g hi st or ic al fact s ab o u t t h e fat e of Arm en ia ns in Turk ey du rin g W or ld W ar I, su ch as th at “ cert ai nl y h un dr ed s of th ou sa nd s of Arm en ia ns di ed du rin g” wha t it ch arac te riz es as “ th e Arm en ia n rev ol t.” Und er TCA’s in te rp ret at io n, ho wev er, th e te rm “ de ni al ” wou ld m erel y ex pr es s a su bjec ti ve ev al ua ti on o f th e cred ib il it y of th e hi st or ic al so ur ces fo r ev ery as se rti on on th e TCA web si te , m an y of whi ch TCA adm it s ar e “ co nt es te d.” Su ch an ev al ua ti on of cred ib il it y is es se nt ia ll y

an op in io n, “ no t cap ab le of be in g pr ov en tru e or fal s e , ” a n d t h us no t act io na bl e in de fam at io n, be cau se d iff

eren t hi st or ia ns m ig ht well co m e to di ffer en t co nc lu si on s. Se e Ger ac i , 52 6 N.W .2d at 39 7. On th e ot he r ha nd
, th e “ de ni al ” st at em en t reas on ab ly

can be co ns tru ed as st at in g si m pl y th at th e TCA web si te de ni es th at th e tre at m en t of
Arm en ia ns wit hi n Turk ey du rin g W or ld Wa r I mee ts th e de fin it io n of th e te rm

“ ge no ci de .” A s ta te m en t a b o ut th e co nt en t of th e TCA web si te is cap ab le of be in g
p r o ve n tru e or fal se

. Bec au se th e TCA web si te do es , i n fact , s ta te th at it is “ hi gh ly

un li ke ly th at a ge no ci de ch arg e co ul d be su st ai ne d ag ai ns t th e Ott om an go ve rn m en t

or it s s uc ces so r” b as ed on th e h is to ric al ev id en ce, the Cen te r’s st at em en t un de r th is
in te rp ret at io n i s t ru e an d, t hu s, s ti ll no t ac ti on ab le

. Se e Fol ey , 44 9 N.W.2d a t 5 00

.

T he re m ai nin g th ree st at em en ts can be in te rp ret ed reas ona bly onl y as subj ec tiv e
op in io ns , rat he r th an fact s. The qu al it ie s of be in g rel ia bl e (“ tru st wor th y , sa fe su re”)
, st ran ge (“ [u ]nus ua l, ab no rm al ”), an d il le gi ti m at e (“ irr eg ul ar, ab no rm al ”), se e New Sh or te r Oxfo rd Eng li sh Dict io na ry 25 36
, 30 83
, 13 09 (4 th ed

. 19 93 ), each are in th e
ey e of th e be ho ld er, an d th e y d i d no t ap pe ar in a co nt ex t th at wou ld pr ov id e an

-1 1-ob

jecti ve , fact -b as ed m eas ur em en t of thes e qu al it ie s. Se e Ger ac i , 52 6 N.W .2d at 39 7-
98 (aff irming th at st at em en ts th at th e pl ai nt iff “ ha d po is on ed th e bo ard ,” was “ ou t of

co n t r o l ,” “ a ba d in flu en ce,” “ em ot io na l,” an d “ no t a te am pl ay er” co ul d no t

reas on ab ly be in te rp ret ed as s ta ti ng fact s)

.

TCA ne ve rth el es s arg ue s th at th e fo ur s t a t e ment s, ta ke n to ge th er in co nt ex t, im pl y a ch arg e of sc ho la st ic frau d aga in st TCA, an d th at sc ho la st ic frau d is cap ab le of be in g pr ov ed tru e or fal se

. To be su re, “ [w]ord s, whi ch ta ke n by th em se lv es ha ve 2

an in no cen t m ean in g, in co nn ect io n with su rro un di ng cir cu m st an ces , m ay co nv ey a de fam at or y m ean in g to th os e fam il ia r wit h su ch ci rcu m st an ces .” Gad ac h v. Ben to n Cn ty . C o- op Ass ’n , 5 3 N.W .2d 23 0, 23 2 (Mi nn . 1 95 2)

. In su ch cas es , “ [w]het he r a de fam at or y m ean in g is co nv ey ed is de pe nd en t up on ho w or di na ry m en un de rs ta nd the
l a n gu ag e us ed in th e li gh t of su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces .” Id

. Here, ho wev er, th e
st at em en ts in co nt ex t wou ld no t su gg es t to an or di na ry li st en er th at th e sp eak er in te nd ed to le ve l sp eci fic ch arg es of sc ho la st ic frau d ag ai ns t TCA, W ik ip ed ia
, or th e
ot he r li st ed web si te s, no t le as t be cau se web si te s in ge ne ral are no t or di na ril y vi ewed

as sc ho la rly wor ks

. Thi s is pa rti cu la rly tru e of an ad vo cacy web si te li ke th e TCA si te

. Se e, e.g

. , Vict au li c Co

. v. Ti ema n , 49 9 F.3 d 22 7, 23 6 (3 d Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ [A] co m pa ny’ s web si te is a m ark et i n g t o o l

. O fte n, m ark et in g m at eri al is fu ll of im pr eci se pu ffer y th at no on e sh ou ld tak e at face va lu e.”).

Bec au se th e c h al le ng ed st at em en ts ei th er are tru e or can no t reas on ab ly be
in te rp ret ed as st at in g fact s, th e Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l of TCA’s d efam at io n cl ai m al so m us t b e aff irmed.

TCA ap pa ren tl y de fin es “ sc ho la st ic frau d” as an in te nt io na l fal si fic at io n in a 2
pu bl is he d s ch ol arl y

work

.
-1 2-V. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm wit h res pe ct to TCA’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t

a nd de fam at io n cl ai m s, an d we va cat e an d rem an d fo r di sm is sa l du e to la ck of

st an di ng wit h re sp ect to Cin gi ll i’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t cl ai m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 3-