In the case of Carr v. Educational Theatre Assn., 2023-Ohio-1681, an appellate court held that an email that could be interpreted as either defamatory or not defamatory could not be used as a basis for a defamation per se claim.
In this case, the thespian officer argued that the email implicitly referred to the officer could only be interpreted in a defamatory way; that the thespian officer represented a threat to child safety. In response, the association argued that even if the email could be read in a defamatory way, the email could also be interpreted to mean the association needed more time to complete its investigation, and that the multiple interpretations negated a defamation per se claim. The appellate court agreed with the association.
In support of its decision in favor of the association, the appellate court explained that using insinuation and implication shows that the words are not defamatory by the meanings of the words themselves, and would be barred under a claim of defamation per se. The appellate court further explained that the email could either be interpreted as insinuating the officer was a threat to child safety or as a request for more time to complete an investigation, which nullified a claim of defamation per se.
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.