In a defamation action arising from statements published online about a law professor’s review of a university report on systemic racism, the court was required to determine on a voir dire whether certain impugned statements were capable of bearing defamatory meanings.
Applying established defamation principles, including the test from WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson, the court assessed whether the words could reasonably lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.
The court concluded that eight impugned statements were capable of conveying meanings that impugned the plaintiff’s integrity, independence, and professionalism in conducting and authoring the report.
However, the court rejected additional alleged meanings suggesting betrayal of Black people or support for racism, finding those meanings did not naturally arise from the words.
Only the identified defamatory meanings would proceed to the jury.
