16 F. Supp. 3d 1
D. Mass.2014Background
- In Nov. 2010 Mara (Martha) Feld arranged to ship her thoroughbred Munition to a New Jersey farm but the horse was sent to auction and may have been slaughtered; the incident generated heated online debate.
- Crystal Conway, a Kentucky bloodstock agent, posted on Twitter during that debate: “Mara Feld aka Gina Holt — you are fucking crazy!”
- Feld (Massachusetts citizen and toxicology Ph.D.) sued Conway in Dec. 2013 for defamation (libel) based on the tweet; jurisdiction invoked by diversity.
- Conway moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the tweet is protected opinion/hyperbole and thus not actionable defamation; she also challenged personal jurisdiction but the court addressed the merits first.
- The complaint alleged the tweet harmed Feld’s professional reputation and is discoverable via internet search; the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations for purposes of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tweet is actionable defamatory falsehood or protected opinion/hyperbole | Feld: the tweet is an unexplained indictment of her sanity and thus defamatory | Conway: the tweet is opinion/rhetorical hyperbole in the context of an online debate and thus protected by the First Amendment | Held: tweet is opinion/hyperbole and cannot reasonably be read as stating provable facts; dismissal granted |
| Whether the statement concerned Feld and was published to a third party | Feld: tweet names her and is publicly accessible | Conway: (implicit) publication does not convert opinion into factual allegation | Held: the tweet was concerning Feld and published, but that alone does not make it actionable when it is opinion |
| Whether the complaint pleaded fault and damages sufficient for defamation | Feld: professional harm alleged from public availability of tweet | Conway: constitutional protection of opinion negates actionable fault/damage claim | Held: complaint relies solely on the protected tweet and fails to state a claim despite pleaded reputational effects |
| Whether the court should decide merits before personal jurisdiction | Feld: jurisdictional posture not outcome-determinative here | Conway: urged lack of personal jurisdiction | Held: court exercised discretion to decide merits first and dismissed on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (First Amendment protects opinions from defamation liability)
- Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2003) (opinion based on disclosed or assumed nondefamatory facts is not actionable)
- Dulgarian v. Stone, 420 Mass. 843 (Mass. 1995) (same principle under Massachusetts law)
- Levesque v. Doocy, 560 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (rhetorical hyperbole and imaginative expression are protected)
- Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court examples of protected rhetorical statements)
- Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court protecting parody/rhetorical hyperbole from defamation/intentional infliction claims)
- Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2012) (elements of a Massachusetts defamation claim)
- Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2003) (defamation elements under Massachusetts law)