In 2015, St. Tammany Parish resident Kacie Breen shot her husband, Dr. Wayne Breen, and killed him, claiming self-defense. The resulting investigation resulted in no prosecution or even arrest. The case was documented closely in the media, and several online discussion groups proliferated. Some posts in these groups suggested a murderous intent on behalf of Mrs. Breen.
In January of 2016, she filed a lawsuit against some of the individuals who made such posts, claiming defamation. Several defendants filed a special motion to strike the claim, claiming that they were expressions of opinion and that the lawsuit would violate their rights to free speech. In regards to two of the involved parties, the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany granted the motion to strike. Mrs. Breen appealed this decision.
The issue in the case was whether the online comments were indeed free speech. A special motion to strike is a court procedure that allows the complete dismissal of lawsuits that would harm the exercise of free speech. See La. C.C.P. art 971. In order to achieve this, the moving party must prove that the comment was protected by the United States or state Constitution and that it was regarding a public issue. A public issue in this context is any matter of public interest or concern. See Starr v Bourdreaux, 978 So. 2d 384 (La. Ct. App. 2007). Public concern involves any speech of political or social concern to a community. See Connick v Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
The shooting was widely discussed in the local media of St. Tammany Parish. In addition, the defendants resided in the area, so they would have been well aware of such media coverage. Also, the groups in which these comments were made were specifically to discuss the death of Dr. Breen and what it meant to the community. In addition, criminal prosecutions generally involve the public interest even when they could raise defamation claims.
Breen argued that the fact she was never prosecuted would prevent this from being a matter of public concern. The First Circuit disagreed on the basis that failure to indict a defendant does not prevent a future proceeding. Thus, the situation could be considered a matter of public concern.
Since this was a matter of concern, Mrs. Breen would have to prove the probability of success on her defamation claim. Defamation involves statements that wrongly damage another’s reputation. In order to prove this, it is necessary to show that someone has used false words to harm the reputation of another person. See Fitzgerald v Tucker, 737 So. 2d 706 (La. 1999). There is an exception for opinions about matters of public concern. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).
The statements here were posted in Facebook groups mourning the loss of their community doctor. The First Circuit also considered that the women in their statements did not claim any kedge about criminal prosecutions or allege any previously unknown facts. Thus, the First Circuit reasoned that they were likely nothing more than statements of opinion made in reaction to the media coverage. Because these were statements of opinion about matters of public concern, they were not defamation. The First Circuit affirmed the District Court decision.
The use of social media can harm reputations even of those one has never met. The courts can provide a remedy should one be wronged by such behavior. A good lawyer can find the proper evidence to obtain relief in such situations.
Additional Sources: Kacie Magee Breen Versus Jeanie Mcandrew Holmes, et al.
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on defamation: Court Dismisses Priest’s Defamation Suit Because of its Likelihood of Failure
Written by Berniard Law Firm