In August 2016 Aidan Kearney (aka “Turtle Boy”) published a critical blog post on Anthony Michael Branch of Brockton. In court documents, Branch describes himself as a “Pentecostal Bishop and well-respected civil rights leader.”
Kearney’s blog post took aim at Branch for his role in changing Brockton High School’s mascot from “housemasters” to “deans,” the latter name being somehow more politically correct.
In his blog post, Kearney referred to Branch as a “fake bishop” with an “online” theology degree. He also accused Branch of “bilking the taxpayers and stirring up racial tensions.”
Branch filed a lawsuit against Kearney and his company (Turtleboy Digital Marketing, LLC) in Plymouth Superior Court. Kearney filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the case. The motion was allowed and Branch’s lawyers filed an appeal.
The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal.
First, the justices noted that Branch was a public official (e.g, school committee member, chairman of the Brockton diversity commission, mayoral candidate, etc.). As such the rigorous “New York Times” standard applied to him. According to the U.S. Supreme Court
The constitutional guarantees require…a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with “actual malice” — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
The Appeals Court found no evidence that Kearney knowingly or recklessly published false statements about Branch.
Regarding the “fake bishop” comment, the justices write:
We disagree with [Branch’s] contention that calling someone a “fake bishop” or a “fake pastor” is an actionable false statement of fact in the context presented here. The blog reference to fake religious offices was nothing more than a constitutionally protected opinion…especially in the context of the blog criticizing the plaintiff for leveraging his religious status to achieve political gains including being photographed with a presidential candidate [Hillary Clinton], holding public office, and being responsible for changing the nomenclature of school administrators. (Citations omitted.)
Additionally, the justices found no issue in Kearney’s “online” degree quip:
We also reject the plaintiff’s claim that the blog reference to a degree from an “online school” was false. That reference was not directed at the plaintiff. To the extent the statement could have been perceived as suggesting the plaintiff had an “online” degree, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony resolves this claim in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff acknowledged in his testimony that he never obtained a bachelor’s degree, and he also acknowledged that he falsely claimed to be a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Thus, the reference to the “online” degree was even more generous than the truth of no degree at all.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.