Opinion ID: 799252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: TCA's Defamation Claim

Text: TCA alleges that the defendants defamed it by stating that TCA's website (1) engages in denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey during World War I, (2) is unreliable, (3) presents a strange mix of fact and opinion, and (4) is an illegitimate source of information. The defendants counter, and the district court agreed, that these are statements of opinion, rather than fact, and thus cannot support a claim of defamation. Under Minnesota law, [a] statement is defamatory if it (1) has been communicated to a third party; (2) is false; and (3) tends to harm the individual's reputation and lowers him or her in the community's estimation. Geraci v. Eckankar, 526 N.W.2d 391, 397 (Minn.Ct.App.1995). With regard to the element of falsity, [t]ruth is a complete defense, and true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable. Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc., 449 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989). Notably, statements about matters of public concern not capable of being proven true or false and statements that cannot be interpreted reasonably as stating facts are protected from defamation actions under the First Amendment. Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 397. Whether a statement can be interpreted as stating facts is a question of law. Id. With regard to the first challenged statement, TCA argues that the Center's accusation of denial is false because the term denial, in the context of genocide studies, is a term of art that implies denial of well-documented underlying facts associated with a genocidal event. TCA points out that its website does not deny certain underlying historical facts about the fate of Armenians in Turkey during World War I, such as that certainly hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during what it characterizes as the Armenian revolt. Under TCA's interpretation, however, the term denial would merely express a subjective evaluation of the credibility of the historical sources for every assertion on the TCA website, many of which TCA admits are contested. Such an evaluation of credibility is essentially an opinion, not capable of being proven true or false, and thus not actionable in defamation, because different historians might well come to different conclusions. See Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 397. On the other hand, the denial statement reasonably can be construed as stating simply that the TCA website denies that the treatment of Armenians within Turkey during World War I meets the definition of the term genocide. A statement about the content of the TCA website is capable of being proven true or false. Because the TCA website does, in fact, state that it is highly unlikely that a genocide charge could be sustained against the Ottoman government or its successor based on the historical evidence, the Center's statement under this interpretation is true and, thus, still not actionable. See Foley, 449 N.W.2d at 500. The remaining three statements can be interpreted reasonably only as subjective opinions, rather than facts. The qualities of being reliable (trustworthy, safe sure), strange ([u]nusual, abnormal), and illegitimate (irregular, abnormal), see New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 2536, 3083, 1309 (4th ed. 1993), each are in the eye of the beholder, and they did not appear in a context that would provide an objective, fact-based measurement of these qualities. See Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 397-98 (affirming that statements that the plaintiff had poisoned the board, was out of control, a bad influence, emotional, and not a team player could not reasonably be interpreted as stating facts). TCA nevertheless argues that the four statements, taken together in context, imply a charge of scholastic fraud against TCA, and that scholastic fraud is capable of being proved true or false. [2] To be sure, [w]ords, which taken by themselves have an innocent meaning, in connection with surrounding circumstances, may convey a defamatory meaning to those familiar with such circumstances. Gadach v. Benton Cnty. Co-op. Ass'n, 236 Minn. 507, 53 N.W.2d 230, 232 (1952). In such cases, [w]hether a defamatory meaning is conveyed is dependent upon how ordinary men understand the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances. Id. Here, however, the statements in context would not suggest to an ordinary listener that the speaker intended to level specific charges of scholastic fraud against TCA, Wikipedia, or the other listed websites, not least because websites in general are not ordinarily viewed as scholarly works. This is particularly true of an advocacy website like the TCA site. See, e.g., Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236 (3d Cir.2007) ([A] company's website is a marketing tool. Often, marketing material is full of imprecise puffery that no one should take at face value.). Because the challenged statements either are true or cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating facts, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of TCA's defamation claim also must be affirmed.