In the case of Mitchell v. Fix, 2023-Ohio-1957, an appellate court held that the political candidate did not have a valid defamation per se claim when the social media posts from a public official imply, but do not directly accuse, a political candidate of mailing political advertising that disparaged other candidates.
In this case, the political candidate argued that the public official engaged in defamation per se through posts on Facebook and a statement made during a committee meeting by alleging that the candidate was directly involved in the mailing of political advertising that disparaged other candidates, even though the public official knew that the candidate was not involved with the advertising. In response, the public official argued that the social media posts and committee meeting statement did not say that the candidate was responsible directly and a claim for defamation per quod would require the candidate to allege special damages. The appellate court agreed with the public official.
In support of its decision in favor of the public official, the appellate court explained that the Facebook posts and statement never allege that the political candidate sent the mailers, but instead implied that the candidate was indirectly responsible for the mail. The appellate court further explained that the candidate stated a claim for defamation per quod because an interpretation of the statements would be required, but failed to allege special damages that arose from the claim of defamation per quod.
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.