Case Details
- Judge(s)
- McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The trial court properly granted the defendant's special motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, finding that characterizing someone as a white supremacist is a nonactionable opinion rather than defamation per se, and the court affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the defendant.
Excerpt
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which had dismissed his defamation action against the defendant, and from the court's decision to award the defendant attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to meet his burden under § 52-196a (e) (3) of showing that there was probable cause that he would prevail on the merits of his defamation per se claim, which was based on the defendant's statement on a social media page characterizing the plaintiff as a white supremacist. Held: The trial court properly granted the defendant's special motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under § 52-196a. The plaintiff expressly waived any challenge to the trial court's determination that the defendant had met her initial burden under § 52-196a (e) (3) of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff's com- plaint implicated the defendant's exercise of her constitutional right of free speech on a matter of public concern. The trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that there was probable cause that he would prevail on the merits of his defamation claim, this court having concluded that the characterization of someone as a white supremacist, without more, is a nonactionable opinion rather than actionable defamation per se. Characterizing a person as a white supremacist, without more, is not a fact that can be objectively verified, the use of that term, without more, does not necessarily imply that the declarant knew existing, undisclosed defamatory facts, and, in the present case, given the context in which the defendant called the plaintiff a white supremacist, a reasonable reader of the comment would not have expected that the defendant was stating a fact about the plaintiff or that the defendant had private, firsthand knowledge supporting h
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.