Opinion ID: 2784464
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fault

Text: For a public official to prove fault, he must satisfy the actual-malice standard; he must prove that the defendant made the statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard [for] whether it was false or not.” Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 413 N.E.2d 1187, 1190 (Ohio 1980). “Actual malice may not be inferred from evidence of personal spite[,] illwill[,] or intention to injure on the part of the [defendant]. Rather, the focus of inquiry is on [the] defendant’s attitude toward the truth or falsity of the publication. . . . There must be a showing that false statements were made with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity. . . [and] sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Id. at 1190-91 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Even if Driehaus could prove that the PPACA does not include any taxpayer funding of abortion, thus making SBA List’s statements actually or technically false, we can find no evidence to support Driehaus’s claim that SBA List “knew” the statements were false or “entertained serious doubts as to their truth.” Rather, all of the evidence supports a finding that SBA List did then, and does now, believe emphatically that the statements are true: that the PPACA includes taxpayer funding for abortions. Moreover, given that SBA List’s mission is “ending all federal funding of abortion,” SBA List would have no cause to criticize or campaign against either the PPACA or Driehaus if it did not believe that the PPACA included taxpayer funded abortions. Rather, one would expect SBA List to support an anti-abortion candidate, particularly one who had been as outspoken as Driehaus had been in opposing federal taxpayer funding of abortion. Driehaus cannot show any basis by which we could find actual malice. Consequently, SBA List is entitled to summary judgment on this defamation claim.