Jonathan Griffith v. Merlene Wall
224 So. 3d 1293
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Merlene Wall, Lumberton municipal clerk, sued Jonathan Griffith (operator of the "Lumberton Informer" blog) for libel, slander, and sought an injunction over allegedly defamatory anonymous comments on his blog.
- County Court trial: Wall and a deputy clerk testified they believed Griffith was responsible for anonymous comments; Griffith said a third party moderated comments.
- County Court judgment: found Wall a public figure, concluded blog posts in evidence were opinions (not provably false factual statements) and that Wall failed to prove actual malice; also found insufficient proof Griffith controlled anonymous comments—judgment for Griffith.
- Wall appealed to the Circuit Court, raising for the first time that 47 U.S.C. § 230 somehow imposed an obligation on Griffith to screen/remove anonymous comments; Griffith did not file a brief or respond on appeal.
- Circuit Court reversed the County Court, treating Griffith’s failure to file a brief as a confession of error. Griffith appealed to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
- Court of Appeals held the Circuit Court erred: § 230 does not impose a screening obligation, Wall failed to show an apparent case of error, and the Circuit Court should have affirmed despite Griffith’s absence; reversed and rendered, reinstating the County Court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellee’s (Griffith) failure to file a brief in circuit court is a confession of error | Wall argued failure to respond is confession of error, allowing reversal | Griffith argued absence does not preclude affirmance when appellant fails to show error | Court: dismissal of brief did not require confession of error here; circuit court should have affirmed because appellant failed to make out apparent error |
| Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) imposes an obligation to screen/remove offensive anonymous comments | Wall argued § 230 creates an affirmative duty on provider to screen/remove offending material, tying anonymous comments to Griffith | Griffith argued § 230 protects providers and does not impose a duty to screen; it shields them when they do screen | Court: § 230 is protective, not mandatory; statute does not impose an obligation to screen or make Griffith liable |
| Whether County Court erred in finding no actionable defamation by Griffith | Wall argued anonymous comments should be attributable to Griffith and thus actionable | Griffith argued posts in evidence were opinions or not made by him; Wall failed to prove falsity or actual malice | Court: County Court correctly found Wall (a public figure) failed to prove false statements of fact or actual malice; no reversible error established |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrew v. McGrew, 184 So. 3d 302 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing options when appellee fails to file a brief on appeal)
- Miller v. Pannell, 815 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 2002) (appellate practice treating failure to file brief as confession of error in some circumstances)
- N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (public-figure defamation requires false factual statement and proof of actual malice)