Meanith Huon v. Nick Denton
841 F.3d 733
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Meanith Huon was criminally charged with sexual assault, pleaded not guilty, and was acquitted by a jury in 2008.
- On the day of acquittal, Above the Law (ATL) published an article titled "Rape Potpourri" discussing the incident; ATL later updated to note the acquittal.
- A year later Jezebel (owned by Gawker) published an article about Huon’s suit against ATL titled initially "Acquitted Rapist Sues Blog For Calling Him Serial Rapist," later edited to "Man Acquitted of Sexual Assault Sues Blog for Calling Him Serial Rapist," and the piece drew dozens of anonymous third‑party comments.
- Huon sued ATL (settled) and amended to add Gawker, alleging defamation (per se and per quod), false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the Jezebel article’s headline/text and third‑party comments.
- The district court dismissed all claims against Gawker and denied leave to file a fifth amended complaint; Huon appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims based on Jezebel’s headline and article text (applying the innocent‑construction rule and the fair‑report privilege) but reversed as to one third‑party comment and remanded the false‑light and IIED claims tied to that comment; denial of leave to amend was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jezebel headline/graphic defamed Huon per se | Headline and mugshot implied Huon committed rape despite "acquitted" | Headline and graphic must be read with article; innocuous construction applies | Innocent‑construction rule applies; headline/graphic not actionable |
| Whether Jezebel’s article text was defamatory | Article mischaracterized trial and suit, omitted timing, republished defamatory ATL allegations | Article was a fair and accurate abridgment of official proceedings (fair‑report privilege) | Fair‑report privilege applies; text not defamatory |
| Whether Gawker is liable for defamatory third‑party comments under § 230 | Gawker encouraged, edited, selected, and possibly authored comments, making it an information‑content provider | § 230 shields publishers of third‑party content; editorial moderation is protected | § 230 not resolved generally here—pleaded facts that Gawker employees authored comments plausible; CDA defense inappropriate at pleading stage |
| Whether any comment was actionable defamation | All comments are opinions/hyperbole or non‑specific; none impute crime | At least one comment unambiguously accuses Huon of rape and is verifiable fact | One comment (explicitly calling him a rapist) is defamation per se and may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir.) (pleading standard review on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (limits on conclusory allegations)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (opinion/fact distinction in defamation)
- Tuite v. Corbitt, 866 N.E.2d 114 (Ill.) (defamation and defamation per se rules)
- Solaia Tech., LLC v. Specialty Pub. Co., 852 N.E.2d 825 (Ill.) (fair‑report privilege)
- Green v. Rogers, 917 N.E.2d 450 (Ill.) (innocent‑construction rule)
- Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir.) (§ 230 scope and passive host rule)