Opinion ID: 2784464
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ohio Defamation Analysis

Text: Under Ohio law, “it is for the court to decide as a matter of law whether certain statements alleged to be defamatory are actionable or not.” Yeager v. Local Union 20, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669 (Ohio 1983) (overruled on other grounds by Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007) (recognizing false-light invasion of privacy)). Moreover, “[w]hether the evidence in the record supports a finding of actual malice is a question of law.” McKimm v. Ohio Elections Comm., 729 N.E.2d 364, 373 (Ohio 2000); see also Dale v. Ohio Civil Service Emp. Ass’n, 567 N.E.2d 253, 255 (Ohio 1991) (“Where the ‘actual malice’ standard is applicable, . . . appellate courts are required to independently review the evidence.”). Therefore, the question is properly before us. “To establish defamation, the plaintiff must show (1) that a false statement of fact was made, (2) that the statement was defamatory, (3) that the statement was published, (4) that the plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the publication, and (5) that the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement.” Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 978 N.E.2d 832, 852 (Ohio 2012). Failure to establish any one of these elements is fatal to the claim. We need consider only the first and fifth elements.
Ohio courts “ha[ve] defined a false statement as a statement that sets forth matters which are not true or statements without grounds in truth or fact. A statement is not a ‘false statement’ if, even though it is misleading and fails to disclose all relevant facts, the statement has some No. 13-3238 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus Page 7 truth in it. Moreover, a statement that is subject to different interpretations is not ‘false.’” Serv. Emp. Int’l Union Dist. 1199 v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 822 N.E.2d 424, 430 (Ohio App. 2004) (internal citations, editorial marks, and certain quotation marks omitted); see also Nat’l Medic. Serv. Corp. v. E.W. Scripps Co., 573 N.E.2d 1148, 1150 (Ohio App. 1989) (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th Ed. 1971) 798-99 (“It is sufficient [in defending a defamation action] to show that the imputation is substantially true, or as it is often put, to justify the ‘gist,’ the ‘sting,’ or the substantial truth of the defamation.”)). We must therefore consider whether SBA List’s statements “ha[ve] some truth,” Serv. Emp. Internat’l, 822 N.E.2d at 430, are “subject to different interpretations,” id., or are “substantially true,” Nat’l Medic. Serv., 573 N.E.2d at 1150, such that the “gist” or “sting” of the statement is substantially true, id. This is a low threshold. Driehaus argues that the statements were false because the PPACA contains no “appropriation” for funding elective abortion anywhere in its text and therefore does not “provide” federal funding for abortion. SBA List, on the other hand, points out that in its actual statements it used the word “includes” and never used the word “provides” or “appropriation.” Based solely on Driehaus’s construction of his claim and SBA List’s response, the true substance of these statements appears to be subject to differing interpretations. Moreover, given the debate prior to passage of the PPACA as to whether it includes taxpayer funding for abortion, the gist or sting of the statements appears to have at least some truth, to be substantially true, or to be subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus vocally opposed the PPACA because of his concerns about federal funding for abortions but he then voted for it anyway despite the absence of his desired language (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) in the final version. The Executive Order adds language, but is not part of the PPACA and does not alter the statutory text. In fact, debate continues over the meaning and effect of the PPACA. Due to the low threshold we have here for a finding of “truth,” we need not resolve this debate at a higher level of specificity. For SBA List to overcome Driehaus’s defamation claim, it is enough that the statements had some truth, were substantially true, or were subject to differing interpretations. Driehaus’s own change of position demonstrates that they were. No. 13-3238 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus Page 8
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.