Opinion ID: 203732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defamatory in Nature

Text: The district court held that a jury could find defamatory the defendants' attribution to Levesque of two false and absurd quotationsham is not a toy and it's akin to making these kids feel like they're being shot at back in Mogadishu and being starved to deathalong with repeated references to a ham sandwich which included a recreation of the incident. The court found that the defendants' statements that Levesque and the Lewiston Middle School considered the incident to be a potential hate crime and the use of the term anti-ham response plan were not defamatory, concluding that the former was substantially true and the latter was rhetorical hyperbole. A communication is defamatory if it is provable as false, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-20, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), and `tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him,' Bakal v. Weare, 583 A.2d 1028, 1029 (Me. 1990) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1977)). Whether a statement is susceptible to a defamatory meaning is a question of law. Amrak Prods., Inc. v. Morton, 410 F.3d 69, 72 (1st Cir.2005). To appropriately `construe[] [the statement] in the light of what might reasonably have been understood therefrom by the persons who [heard] it,' Veilleux v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 206 F.3d 92, 108 (1st Cir.2000) (quoting Marston v. Newavom, 629 A.2d 587, 592 (Me.1993)), a court should consider the context in which the challenged statement is made, viewing it within the communication as a whole, Amrak Prods., 410 F.3d at 72-73; Hearst Corp., 54 F.3d at 27; Phantom Touring. Inc. v. Affiliated Pubs., 953 F.2d 724, 729 (1st Cir. 1992); Bakal, 583 A.2d at 1030. We dispense first with those comments which the district court found non-actionable. A substantially true statement does not provide adequate basis for a defamation claim under Maine law. Veilleux, 206 F.3d at 111; McCullough v. Visiting Nurse Serv., 691 A.2d 1201, 1204 (Me.1997). Lewiston Middle School classified the offending student's conduct as Hate Crime/Bias in its computer system, both the Washuk and Plagman articles accurately quoted Levesque describing the conduct as a hate incident, and the Washuk article opened with more disciplinary action could follow a possible hate crime at Lewiston Middle School, Superintendent Leon Levesque said. We therefore agree with the district court that [t]he [defendants'] statement `[T]he superintendent and the school board [are] looking into perhaps other charges against the kid because it's a hate crime' is not actionable because it is substantially true. Levesque, 557 F.Supp.2d at 165, n. 54 (citing Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 516-17, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991)). We also agree that the defendants' references to an anti-ham response plan were not defamatory. Statements that contain imaginative expression or rhetorical hyperbole are protected. Veilleux, 206 F.3d at 115 (citing Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. 2695; Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir.1997)). Here, the defendants augmented Washuk's accurate reporting the [Center] is working with the school to create a response planwith Plagman's creative flourishthe [Center is] working with the school to create an anti-ham `response plan.' This loosely rhyming phrase provided the defendants with a succinct, perhaps distasteful, jingle through which to express their derision, but such a device does not qualify as a provably false statement, capable of a defamatory nature. Further, it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about [Levesque], Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. 2695 (internal quotations and citation omitted). [6] We turn next to those statements which the trial court found defamatory in nature, the defendants' repeated references to a ham sandwich and two fabricated statements attributed to Levesque. While the district court found that the defendants' mischaracterization of the ham placed on the Somali students' table presented a jury question as to whether the remarks were defamatory in nature, we think it is a close question whether the references to a ham sandwich would have a different effect on the mind of a listener than an accurate report about a leftover ham steak. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517, 111 S.Ct. 2419. However, because our ultimate resolution of this case makes such a determination unnecessary, we do not disturb the district court's findings. We concur with the district court that a jury reasonably could conclude that the two fabricated statements attributed to Levesque were defamatory. The Supreme Court has observed [i]n general, quotation marks around a passage indicate to the reader that the passage reproduces the speaker's words verbatim. They inform the reader that he or she is reading the statement of the speaker, not a paraphrase or other indirect interpretation by an author. By providing this information, quotations add authority to the statement and credibility to the author's work. Quotations allow the reader to form his or her own conclusions and to assess the conclusions of the author, instead of relying entirely upon the author's characterization of her subject ... [T]he attribution may result in injury to reputation because the manner of expression or even the fact that the statement was made indicates a negative personal trait or an attitude the speaker does not hold. Masson, 501 U.S. at 511, 111 S.Ct. 2419. During the Fox and Friends cablecast, the hosts persistently ridiculed the Lewiston Public Schools and Levesque for the response to the April 11 incident and emphasized several times two false and particularly ridiculous quotations which they attributed to Levesque, ham is not a toy and a comparison of the incident to Mogadishu. The attribution of these comments to Levesque coupled with the defendants' laughter tinged with contempt, Powers v. Durgin-Snow Pub. Co., 154 Me. 108, 144 A.2d 294, 296 (1958), encouraged viewers to form negative conclusions about Levesque, thus tending to harm his reputation. Therefore, we agree with the district court that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the statements were defamatory. [7]