Mean-Spirited Email Only Non-Libelous Opinions
A mean-spirited email send off commenting on a fired newspaper publisher was not libelous because it contained only opinions, not objectively verifiable facts.
An Illinois appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a libel action brought by the former publisher of the Jerusalem Post. The newspaper publisher contended that the statements in an email from the editor of the paper, written when the publisher was fired, contained statements that were libel per se. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the statements were only opinions and thus not libelous.
Thomas Rose was fired on May 25, 2004. Two days later, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, then owned by Hollinger International, Inc., sent an email to the staff of the paper commenting on Rose’s departure, stating in part: “For those of us who have seen up close the damage Tom did to this paper, this is a happy event indeed. For those Tom damaged with his abusive behavior and bizarre management style, it is happier still. So good riddance, Tom, good riddance. You will not be missed. . . So many of us have been waiting for this day, and fighting for it, that we may be forgiven for thinking that Tom’s departure brings our problems to an end. It does not. It will be some time before we can undo the damage he has wrought: To our finances, to our reputation, to our business relationship, to our morale, to the quality of our editorial product.”
Rose contended that the email imputed an inability to perform, or a lack of integrity in the discharge of his employment duties and imputed he lacked ability in his trade, profession, or business. The court focused on the sentence concerning damage to finances, reputation, business relationships and quality of the editorial product. The appellate court found that the statement did not have a precise and readily understood meaning and must be considered as a whole and not in a vacuum.
The court also found that the statements were “broad and shapeless” so that a reasonable person could not prove or disprove the assertions. As a result, the court said the “statement is too broad, conclusory, and vague to be objectively verifiable.”
Finally, the court examined the context of the statement. “Here, Stephens’ email represents a mean-spirited sendoff of a discharged publisher for no apparent institutional purpose. It was gloating (‘So good riddance, Tom, good riddance. You will not be missed.’).”
As a result, the appellate court found that “given the occasion for sending of the email and the audience it was intended to reach, we do not see how a reasonable reader would take ‘wrought damage to our finances’ as a factual assertion that Rose caused some injury to specific, identifiable pecuniary affairs or resources of the newspaper.”
Rose v. Hollinger International, Inc., Chicago Sun-Times, Inc, Jerusalem Post and Bret Stephens, Ill. App. Court, Second Division, No. 01-062885, issued August 14, 2007.