In the case of Dordea v. Freleng, 2023-Ohio-1408, an appellate court held that a police chief could not assert a claim for defamation against podcasters when the statements were generalizations and the podcaster had reason to believe the validity of the statements.
In this case, the police chief argued that the podcasters recklessly disregarded the truth when the podcasters referred to a civilian participating in a ride-along as the police chief’s date. In response, podcasters argued that (1) some of the statements were generalities and not specifically directed at the police chief and (2) other statements came from a report and book about the crime scene where the ride-along passenger was referred to as the police chief’s date and the podcasters were simply repeating what had been published. The appellate court agreed with the podcasters.
In support of its decision in favor of the podcasters, the appellate court explained that “if allegedly defamatory words are susceptible to two meanings, one defamatory and one innocent, the defamatory meaning should be rejected, and the innocent meaning adopted.” 2023-Ohio-1408 at ¶ 20. The appellate court further explained that defamation against a public figure requires malice, which means the alleged defamer must know that the statements were false.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.