377 So.3d 170
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 1997 Don Lewis, co-owner of a big-cat sanctuary that became Big Cat Rescue, disappeared; Anne McQueen had been his personal assistant and was involved in subsequent conservatorship litigation.
- That conservatorship settled: McQueen received $50,000 and Baskin agreed to a written apology acknowledging prior allegations were unfounded.
- In 2020 Netflix’s Tiger King and related online media renewed public focus on Lewis’s disappearance; McQueen gave interviews at that time.
- Carole Baskin posted diary-readings on a YouTube vlog and statements on Big Cat Rescue’s website alleging McQueen forged documents, embezzled or diverted funds, and stole property — specific factual accusations of criminal and dishonest conduct.
- McQueen sued Baskin for defamation (plus an abandoned breach/fiduciary claim). Baskin moved to dismiss/for summary judgment invoking Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute (§768.295) and the presuit notice/retraction statutes (§770.01–.02), while the trial court stayed discovery and entered final judgment for Baskin.
- The Second District reversed in part: it held many of Baskin’s statements could be factual and defamatory and that Baskin was not a "media defendant" entitled to §770.01 protections; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McQueen) | Defendant's Argument (Baskin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baskin’s vlog/website statements are nonactionable opinion or actionable assertions of fact | Statements accused McQueen of specific past facts (forgery, embezzlement, diversion of funds) and thus could be defamatory | Statements were opinion, hyperbole, or mental impressions protected by First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP statute | Court: Many statements reasonably read as factual allegations; they could be defamatory as a matter of law — not protected opinion |
| Whether Baskin is a “media defendant” under §770.01 entitling her to presuit notice/retraction protections | McQueen served precautionary notice; Baskin is not entitled to expanded media protections because she is not news media | Baskin’s vlog/website are "other medium" analogous to internet news/media and thus she is entitled to presuit notice/retraction protections | Court: Baskin is not a media defendant for §770.01; her vlog and website posts do not fall within the statute’s news-media-focused scope |
| Whether McQueen’s suit is a prohibited SLAPP under §768.295 because it targets protected public-issue speech | McQueen’s claim challenges allegedly false factual allegations and is not a meritless SLAPP | Baskin argued the speech was protected public-issue commentary and the suit is a SLAPP meritless and subject to expedited dismissal | Court: Because the challenged statements could be defamatory factual assertions, they fall outside the statute’s protection; Anti-SLAPP did not justify dismissal |
| Whether entering judgment without allowing discovery or developing the record was appropriate | McQueen argued the trial court’s discovery stay prevented resolving factual elements (falsity, fault, damages) and summary judgment was premature | Baskin relied on expedited Anti-SLAPP process and summary disposition | Court: Reversed — the stay and summary adjudication deprived McQueen opportunity to develop factual record; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (distinguishes protection for opinion from liability for false statements of fact)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (constitutional limits on libel law and public-figure actual-malice standard)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinions implying false undisclosed facts can be actionable)
- Mazur v. Ospina Baraya, 275 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (interpreting “other medium” in §770.01 and limiting presuit-notice protection to news-media functions)
- Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950) (purpose of §770 statutes: allow press opportunity to retract and mitigate inadvertent errors)
- Lab’y Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2022) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Kieffer v. Atheists of Fla., Inc., 269 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (sets out elements of defamation under Florida law)