Amy Garrard v. Charleston County School District, 890 S.E.2d 567

Plaintiffs (parents and guardians ad litem of students, plus two individual plaintiffs) sued Jones Street Publishers for defamation based on a series of articles about a controversial post‑game ritual performed by Academic Magnet High School football players during the 2014–2015 season.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Jones Street Publishers; the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and affirmed in result.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the alleged statements related to a matter of public controversy and were published by a media defendant.
Because of the media/public‑controversy context, the common‑law presumption of general damages did not apply; plaintiffs were required to prove actual injury (general or special damages).
The Court concluded that, even viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiffs, their proof of damages was speculative and therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the publications were defamatory	Articles accused plaintiffs of racist or discriminatory conduct and harmed reputation	Statements were nonactionable opinion/name‑calling or otherwise not defamatory	Court did not decide all defamatory‑meaning disputes but recognized context can make "racist" defamatory; declined broader review and decided case on damages
Whether the word "racist" is per se nonactionable	Garrard argued calling someone racist was defamatory here	Jones Street argued such epithets are mere name‑calling and not actionable as a matter of law	Court rejected a categorical rule that "racist" can never be defamatory and acknowledged it can be actionable depending on context
Whether the common‑law presumption of general damages applies	Garrard asserted injury from reputational harm should be presumed	Jones Street argued that for media defendants on public controversies plaintiffs must prove actual damages	Court held the presumption does not apply for media defendants on public controversies; plaintiffs must show actual injury
Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of damages to survive summary judgment	Garrard argued evidence showed reputational, emotional, and monetary harm	Jones Street argued damages evidence was speculative and legally insufficient	Court held plaintiffs' damages evidence was speculative, insufficient as a matter of law; affirmed summary judgment in result

Garrard ex rel. R.C.G. v. Charleston County Sch. Dist., 429 S.C. 170, 838 S.E.2d 698 (Ct. App. 2019) (court of appeals' decision under review)
Erickson v. Jones St. Publ'rs, L.L.C., 368 S.C. 444, 629 S.E.2d 653 (2006) (media defendant + public controversy requires proof of actual injury)
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999) (appellate courts may decide only dispositive issues)
Rose v. [unnamed party], 350 S.C. 488, 567 S.E.2d 857 (2002) (summary judgment standards; view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
Capps v. Watts, 271 S.C. 276, 246 S.E.2d 606 (1978) (mere name‑calling generally nondefamatory but may be libelous with extrinsic facts)
La Liberte v. Reid, 966 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (a charge of racism can allege concrete, wrongful conduct that may be provable true or false)
Taylor v. Carmouche, 214 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) (statement that a person is "a racist" can be defamatory depending on context)
MacElree v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc., 674 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1996) (accusations of racism not always nonactionable; context matters)