Calling High School Student "Low IQ" and "Special Ed" at School Meeting About Cheating Can Be Defamatory

From last week's decision in Hamson v. Foothills Christian Academy Soc'y of Backus, MN, decided by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge JaPaul Harris, joined by Judges Francis Connolly and Jon Schmidt:

The following facts derive from the evidence in the summary-judgment record and are framed in the light most favorable to [Hamson] as the nonmoving [party].

Hamson was enrolled as a student at Foothills, a private school, for the 2021-2022 academic year. At that time, Foothills used a password-protected computer grading system to track student assignments and grades. Some teachers and administrators could only unlock assignments, review student progress, and grade work, while other teachers and administrators could also change or override grades.

During the school year, a teacher's aide learned that students were logging into the system using a teacher's credentials and changing their grades. Hamson's former teacher also noticed that Hamson's assignments were being modified in the system. The teacher's aide "conducted an in-depth investigation on every student within [the] high school classroom" to discover when the grades were being overridden, and by whom. This investigation took place on April 4, 9, and 11, 2022. During this investigation, the teacher's aide gathered "strong evidence" that several students, including Hamson, used a former teacher's account to access the system and change their grades. Ecker confronted Hamson, and she admitted that she altered her grades.

On April 5, before the investigation was complete, Ecker held a school meeting to confront some of the students suspected of being involved in changing their grades. The group included students and faculty members of the school, but it did not include Hamson because her parents had removed her from Foothills. Hamson estimated that approximately 17 people were present at the school meeting. Ecker characterized this gathering as a "group session" that is "a normal session as part of the [school's] process and is designed in the form of discipline/assembly."

During this school meeting, Ecker made several statements that Hamson asserts were defamatory. Hamson claims that "[t]he entire speech" was defamatory and included several illustrative examples in the summary-judgment record. Among other statements, Ecker said:

We can be mad at [Hamson]. I would be mad at myself if I were you guys for being a part of a scheme with somebody with a poor IQ. Okay? And that's what I mean. Sitting around the table planning a bank heist, and you've got … a special ed [student] sitting across the table. Maybe it's time to get up and go, pick a new crew. Okay?

Ecker also referred to Hamson as one of the "ringleaders" of the grade-changing scheme and insinuated that she had been expelled for her conduct. Ecker does not dispute that he made these statements.

In March 2024, Hamson filed a defamation complaint against Foothills and Ecker. She asserted that Ecker made these statements "knowing they were false." And she further alleged that the statements were "repeated throughout the community," and had a "severe and negative impact" on her wellbeing….

If a plaintiff proves the elements of defamation, a defendant may argue that a privilege "operate[s] to defeat a defamation claim." Minnesota law recognizes two types of privileges as defenses against defamation claims: absolute privilege and qualified privilege. Only the existence of a qualified privilege is at issue in this case….

For qualified privilege, a statement "must be made in good faith, on a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and upon reasonable or probable cause." Qualified privilege is based on the premise that "statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory." The supreme court has identified a number of circumstances in which an otherwise defamatory statement is protected by qualified privilege. These instances include:

an employer's good-faith statements about a former employee in a requested character reference, statements made in relation to an employer's investigation into employee misconduct, an employer's communication to a former employee of the reasons for the employee's discharge, bad credit references from lending institutions, and [certain statements made in relation to child-abuse allegations].

Qualified privilege also extends to "a good faith report of suspected criminal activity to law enforcement officials" ….

Hamson presented evidence that: (1) Ecker knowingly made the false statements about her to cover up a long-term cheating scandal; (2) Ecker had knowledge of cheating issues for years before the current allegation; (3) Ecker knowingly gave students passwords and access to grading; and (4) Ecker made the statements about Hamson after her mother involved the school board.

This is evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Hamson, from which a fact-finder could conclude that Ecker's statements were not made in good faith, on a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and upon reasonable or probable cause. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment as a matter of law on qualified-privilege grounds….

"A qualified privilege is [also] abused and therefore lost if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant acted with [common-law] malice" … [meaning] "that the defendant made the statement from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff." …

Hamson argues that evidence in the summary-judgment record could support a finding of malice. In her affidavit, Hamson maintained that Ecker made insensitive comments about her intelligence, which led her peers to believe that she had a low-IQ. She also asserted that Ecker told people she had been expelled for her actions, which he knew to be untrue because she left the school by her own choice.

As to a possible motive, Hamson asserted that cheating had been an "ongoing" problem for years and that the principal placed the blame on her to avoid accountability. A former Foothills school-board member and athletic director echoed this statement in her affidavit, noting that cheating had been a problem almost from the beginning of her involvement with the school. The board member stated that "[i]t was not just normal cheating where kids try to get answers from each other, but students having passwords to see all of the online test answers." Hamson claimed that the "ordeal negatively impacted [her] mental health" and damaged her reputation among her peers, the town, and her religious community….

[E]vidence in the summary-judgment record, when viewed in the light most favorable to Hamson, presents a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to conclude that Ecker's statements that Hamson had a "poor IQ," was a "special ed" student, and was expelled were driven by an improper motive. Generally, "[m]alice cannot be implied from the statement itself." Looking beyond the statements, the record shows that Ecker made the statements during a school meeting in front of other students and faculty, and that these statements were potentially damaging to the student's reputation….

Edward R. Shaw (Ed Shaw Law) represents plaintiff.

Comments

[AmosArch]

Presumably they'd know whether or not she was in special ed but how can 'low iq' be defamatory? Did they give her an IQ test where she scored average or above and read the results but lied?

[Joe_dallas]

disclosing a students IQ by a teacher or other school official is inappropriate and likely a violation of professional ethics and certainly a violation of most everyone's sense of personal morals and ethics.

[Malika la Maize]

I thought the same thing here, might could be illegal as a FERPA or such law violation.

[David Nieporent]

It's a private school.

[Krayt]

Yes but defamatory? One could loosely rhetorically describe a student who hacked their grades as low IQ, else why need to hack them? It would not be an actual such statement.

Hamson asserted that cheating had been an "ongoing" problem for years and that the principal placed the blame on her to avoid accountability

Here she likely channels a lawyer. In any case, it's the fault of the free donut table.

[Rossami]

Is disclosing a student's GPA inappropriate? Would you be equally fired up if the teacher had same the same crack about a "C-minus student"? If not (and remember that we disclose GPAs easily and often in other contexts), why is disclosing IQ different?

I think you're wrong on your starting premise. The teacher was a jerk to make the crack but the disclosure of IQ was not the jerky part of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A fair question and I will answer it as such.

1: The word "retard" is verboten. Calling a child with intellectual disabilities a "retard" is like calling a Black child a "nigger" -- with all the consequences.

2: It raises the question of if the child received appropriate services.

3: You can't tell students another is SPED!

[Krayt]

Arguably (certainly in the first case) harrassing, and potential malpractice as a teacher, but are any of these defamation?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If they say she has a low IQ and she doesn't, isn't that sufficient?

[David Nieporent]

Not necessarily, no. What constitutes a low IQ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Most of the sources place it at one stdev below the mean.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Beyond the question of why a FORMER teacher's account was still active, and with the caveat that I am not familiar with Minnesota education law, I am shocked at the FERPA violations here.

Yes, FERPA does not apply to a private school not receiving Federal funds. But the State of Minnesota's compulsory education laws do, i.e. the state gets to regulate it as being an exception to the truancy laws.

And most states piggyback FERPA because (a) the state's public schools have to comply with it and (b) it is a whole lot easier to have one set of rules than two,

Above and beyond that, there is general professionalism in the practice. While it isn't clear who Ecker was, let's presume he/she/it
was the principal -- who simply can't do what Ecker did.

And calling a student a "retard" is actually worse than calling a student a "nigger" because in addition to the hostile environment (etc), it raises FAPE issues.

[David Nieporent]

But the State of Minnesota's compulsory education laws do, i.e. the state gets to regulate it as being an exception to the truancy laws.

Compulsory education laws apply to students, not schools.

And most states piggyback FERPA because (a) the state's public schools have to comply with it and (b) it is a whole lot easier to have one set of rules than two,

Please show me a single state that requires private schools that don't receive state funding to comply with FERPA. This Minnesota state government website expressly says that FERPA or state equivalents do not apply to private schools in Minnesota unless they are "under contract to a government entity."

And calling a student a "retard" is actually worse than calling a student a "nigger" because in addition to the hostile environment (etc), it raises FAPE issues.

It does not, in any way, do that, but of course neither word was used; you just were looking for yet another excuse to say the n-word.

[Riva]

Finally a topic where you can truly shine. Grade school name calling. Always nice to get an expert’s view.

[Bored Lawyer]

Low IQ -- I would argue that is a matter of opinion. "Low" can mean different things to different people. Is an IQ of 100 "low?" How about 120?

[CommentMonkey]

For defamation law purposes, this is not the kind of statement that is generally deemed to be opinion because it is subject to objective measurement. If the principal had called the former student "ugly," there's probably no defamation - that is a highly subjective characterization and thus is opinion.

But stating someone has a "low IQ" and is "special ed" is most likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean there has been some determination that the student falls into a category that requires special remedial classes and so on. This is especially so given that the speaker is a school principal with access to the student's grades, test scores and other records.

If he had said something like "when you see how dumb the cheating scheme was, you have to question this kid's intelligence," it might be closer to the "opinion" line. There, he's making clear that he isn't basing his statement on some objective proof of the kid's IQ.

[David Nieporent]

I disagree with you about "low IQ," for the reasons BL stated. Now, while "special ed," unlike "low IQ," can be deemed an assertion of objective fact, it seems more like the sort of invective that is generally considered to be insulting rhetoric — like calling someone a "crook" — rather than a factual claim. But that probably depends on context (e.g., a school principal saying it may well be different than, e.g., a political opponent saying it), and — depending on how the state in question's defamation law works — that may be a jury question.

[CommentMonkey]

Because, as you say, context matters, it seems to me the "low IQ" comment has to be considered together with the "special ed" comment. Both coming from someone with access to the kid's student records. At least at the SJ stage, it makes little sense to carve out the "low IQ" comment and deem it non-defamatory as a matter of law.

Looks like Minnesota is a "pure opinion" state, which I think makes it even more likely that the "low IQ" comment could be defamatory in this context. That is to say, even if the "low IQ" comment involves some subjectivity as to how one defines "low," it isn't "pure opinion."

[Rossami]

I agree with your assessment of the summary-judgement-stage standard. But when it gets to merits, I think she will face a very high (arguably insurmountable) hurdle to show that the comment was not protected opinion. I think she's on stronger ground with the "special ed" comment but that's a separate claim. Claiming 'context' does not let you arbitrarily double your accusations in a case.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Because it's a quantifiable and fallible statement.

There might be a degree of ambiguity about what "low" means, but it has limits. If, say, she can show that she has a 140 IQ, the statement is false.

[David Nieporent]

I'm going to guess she can't show she has a 140 IQ, but that kind of misses the point anyway. I think that a normal person, hearing someone called "low IQ," interprets that as calling the target "stupid," not making a factual representation about their performance on a specific IQ test.

[TwelveInchPianist]

As I think you pointed out, it depends on who says it and in what context. If a school principal says it in the context of claiming that someone is a special ed student, most people are going to interpret it as a specific claim about their IQ.

[David Nieporent]

I think that a normal person, hearing someone called "low IQ," interprets that as calling the target "stupid,"

For the record, having re-read the decision, the principal never said she had a "low IQ". That's a reasonable paraphrase, but the actual word he is quoted as having said is "poor IQ." Which is even vaguer.

[KenveeB]

"Now, while "special ed," unlike "low IQ," can be deemed an assertion of objective fact, it seems more like the sort of invective that is generally considered to be insulting rhetoric — like calling someone a "crook" — rather than a factual claim."

If a random person called someone "special ed," I'd assume it was just an opinion. If a teacher or principal of that person called them special ed, I'd assume they were asserting a fact. I don't think that's a big jury issue.

[David Nieporent]

I agree with you that "low IQ" seems like opinion. From reading the linked court ruling, it appears that the trial court had granted summary judgment to the school solely based on qualified privilege, and therefore never addressed the issue of whether the relevant statements were false. Thus, that issue wasn't before the appellate court; on remand, I guess the trial court will now have to consider the issue.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Low" can mean different things in different contexts, but there are limits.

One would hope that that a cop who testifies, "I believe the suspect was concealing a weapon because he was wearing a long winter coat despite the fact that it was a very hot day." could be charged with perjury if it was in fact 20 degrees at the time in question.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sure, there are limits. If the kid has a 150 IQ, then low is a lie. But there is a grey area.

In your example, 90 would be clearly true. 70 would be the grey area. 50 would be a lie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Which would indicate that "low IQ" or "hot day" isn't protected opinion, just that the terms have a degree of ambiguity.

Unlike something like ugly, for which there wouldn't be a grey area, it's purely subjective.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unless the cop really is that stupid.

I am reminded of the political hack asked "what river does the Mystic River Bridge cross?"

He said that he didn't know and the jury believed that he really was that stupid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Below 70, by definition.
Average is 100.

[Poxigah146]

I agree. I see "Low IQ" as being the same as "stupid." It's an opinion. No reasonable person sees that as a statement of fact.

[Ken Arromdee]

In the context of also saying that he is a special ed student, reasonable people would be a lot more likely to see the low IQ statement as a statement of fact than if the statement had been made on its own.

[not guilty]

I can understand why the appellate court found the existence of disputed facts sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

That having been said, I doubt that this child -- an admitted cheater -- will be a very sympathetic plaintiff at trial. I also wonder about the parents' values. Their child has been implicated in a scandal involving dishonesty for her personal gain. To respond to that by filing a lawsuit seems perverse to me. What lesson does that teach the child?

[CommentMonkey]

Maybe, but it seems to me a jury isn't going to like what the principal did here. The school had rampant cheating problems. This kid is part of it, gets caught, and withdraws from the school. Realizing he has a chance to pin the blame on someone who's already withdrawn his tuition money, the principal makes grossly inappropriate and unprofessional comments about the kid to the parents of the other cheaters. He slaps everyone else on the wrist and gets to keep all their tuition money.

If I'm a juror, I might not like the kid, but kids make mistakes. I damn sure don't respect the principal and I'm appalled that he (apparently) kept his job after admitting making these statements.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not attempting to absolve the kid, though it would appear that the cheating was somewhat widespread, thus likely would not be considered to be seriously wrong by the kid to participate (only slightly wrong? a small sin )

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that it is the parents who are suing, not the kid.
Arguably, they were harmed by the schools negligence in permitting the cheating to continue.

[David Nieporent]

Remember that it is the parents who are suing, not the kid.

Why would we remember something false? The kid is suing.

Arguably, they were harmed by the schools negligence in permitting the cheating to continue.

That is not in fact arguable.

[ReaderY]

Why wouldn’t a child framed by a school principal in an effort to discredit her to cover the principal’s own role in organizing a long-term cheating scandal favoring select students be a sympathetic plaintiff? Sounds like a very sympathetic plaintiff to me.

[David Nieporent]

Again, where are any of these facts coming from? And who said she was "framed"? That's yet another fact you made up. I don't see anywhere where she denied she had cheated — only that she denied being a "ringleader" in the cheating.

[John F. Carr]

Low IQ may be partially subjective. Does the school even know the student's IQ? A jury can decide if the student was in fact in special ed. A jury can decide if the expulsion allegation was substantially true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, if the school argues "low IQ" is truthful, then they denied her SPED services. Checkmate...

[David Nieporent]

The. School. Is. Private.

[Dr. Ed 2]

State. Law. Still. Applies.

[David Nieporent]

No. State. Law. Says. Whatever. You. Think. It. Says.

[Bubba Jones]

used a former teacher's account to access the system and change their grades. Ecker confronted Hamson, and she admitted that she altered her grades.

Two lessons here: The school failed to use basic password security measures.

Never admit anything.

[ReaderY]

That’s not at all what is being alleged in this case. The student is alleging the principal framed her for a cheating ring run by the school administration itself for children of favored families.

[JonFrum]

This belongs in court? If I call a person 'low IQ' to another, can they sue me for defamation? The lawsuit is the only reason the general public knows about it. Seems like a waste of the court's time. What damages were suffered?

[David Nieporent]

"Hamson claimed that the 'ordeal negatively impacted [her] mental health' and damaged her reputation among her peers, the town, and her religious community…."

[Poxigah146]

Agree. The principal's actions were unprofessional, but I don't agree there should be any legal remedy. Most educators are unprofessional, in my experience, so this is not a surprise. As they say, "Those who can't do, teach."

[ReaderY]

See my comment below about what this case is really about. While, as the court explained, lawsuits by students claiming teachers called them names don’t ordinarily belong in court, this case does. The student alleged far more than just that the principal called her some names.

[Poxigah146]

If that is true, the defamatory statement was the claim that she was the ringleader in a scandal, not that she is supposedly stupid.

[ReaderY]

The student is alleging far more than just that the principle called her a few names. The gravaman of the decision was not whether the names could be defamatory. That wasn’t at issue. It was whether the student had produced enough evidence that she was entitled to let a jury hear her claim, that the principal had engaged in miscoduct which defeated the qualified privilege ordinarily applicable to the actions of a teacher vis-avis students.

What was that misconduct? The student alleged that the school administration itself ran the cheating ring and the principal was, well, a principal participant. The administration ran the cheating ring to ensure the success of favored students. (Big donor families, perhaps?) The student claims that when the cheating ring was discovered, the principaal blamed the it on the student in order to divert culpability from himself. And the student had affidavits from faculty members corroborating her claims, enough evidence the court held she might be able to prevail at trial.

To think that this case is just about calling the student a few names is to grossly misunderstand it. As the court clearly explained, if that was all that was involved, qualified immunity would have come as a matter of course. Teachers are ordinarily immune for this sort of thing if done as a bona fide (if misguided) part of their teaching role. The district court’s dismissal would have been upheld rather than reversed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think there is a lot more going on.

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/foothills-christian-academy-profile/56435

14 grades and only 5 teachers?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think I would rely on privateschoolreview.com as a general rule, but that same page says that there were only 40 students total, so 5 teachers would hardly be out of line. Also, actual news reporting says that the school closed this year due to low enrollment and staffing issues.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hamson was enrolled as a student at Foothills, a private school, for the 2021-2022 academic year"

[David Nieporent]

Your point being what?

[David Nieporent]

Where are those facts coming from?

[ReaderY]

According to the opinion,

“Hansom maintains that Ecker’s motivation to accuse her of having a low IQ…and being the ringleader of the cheating scandal waa not in good faith, rather, it was his desire to cover up his wrongdoings in a longstanding cheating scandal in an attempt to preserve Foothills’ integrity.”

And the court proceeded to find that she had introduced sufficient evidence to aupport her contention to survive summary judgment.

[David Nieporent]

"Cover up his wrongdoings in a longstanding cheating scandal" != "the school administration itself ran the cheating ring and the principal was, well, a principal participant. The administration ran the cheating ring to ensure the success of favored students. (Big donor families, perhaps?) The student claims that when the cheating ring was discovered, the principaal blamed the it on the student in order to divert culpability from himself. And the student had affidavits from faculty members corroborating her claims,"

I'm asking where you got all of those elaborate facts from.

[ReaderY]

I only quoted part of the opinion. The other things I said are also in it.

Please, please, try reading it before you comment again. It’s there.

However, the quote does give the most important part of what I am saying - the principal blamed the cheating scandal on her to cover up his own role in it. Her evidence is discussed further down before the court reverses summary judgment and finds she has enough evidence to go to trial. And the “low IQ” etc. epithets are merely incidental to the main wrongdoing she is accusing him of.

[Poxigah146]

What was the race of the student? I can't find anything online.

[wvattorney13]

I agree with those saying that this is opinion. "Low IQ" and "special ed" to whatever extent they assert facts are commonly used as an insult. I think it is clear that they were used in this context here.

I think that they could be a factual assertion in some situations and maybe that is what the court is going after here. For example if a teacher looked at an IQ test and said, "I can't really tell you the results, but let's just say she is low IQ" then that would imply a comment on the student's actual IQ. Then, though, you have the problem of what is "low."

Same with "special ed." Common insult, but if it were construed as talking about the actual curriculum the student was enrolled in, perhaps I could see it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I have to say, I shocked by the number of people claiming that if a school principal refers to a student as a special ed student at an assembly, they would interpret it as an insult and not as a claim about the status of the student.

And I'm not sure if the school's claims that the comments were made in good faith, for a proper purpose, without malice, etc. preclude it from claiming that they were insults.

[David Nieporent]

I shocked by the number of people claiming that if a school principal refers to a student as a special ed student at an assembly, they would interpret it as an insult and not as a claim about the status of the student.

I mean, this was a tiny school. Surely if she were actually literally a special ed student, the other people would already know that. It's been decades since I was in high school, but I pretty well recall that we knew who all the Special Ed kids were.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. You probably didn't know who all the Special Ed kids were. Some kids have a few normal classes and a few special classes.

2. Things are different now, for certain medical and legal reasons.

3. Doesn't that go to damages?

[TwelveInchPianist]

In any event, how did you know who the Special Ed kids were, other than people telling you?

Maybe someone was just saying that the kids who came to school on that short bus were idiots.

[David Nieporent]

In any event, how did you know who the Special Ed kids were, other than people telling you?

The same way I knew who the drama kids were, and the ESL kids and the NHS kids? I was in the school every day with these people and was able to observe what classes they attended and what activities they participated in?

[wvattorney13]

There is a decent argument that he wasn't even referring to her as a special ed student. He first comments that the others were silly to get involved in a cheating scandal with a "poor IQ" person. He then pivots and compares doing the aforementioned with robbing a bank and doing it with "a special ed."

The second thing was merely illustrative of the first.

[wvattorney13]

I'm curious about damages as well. Did these kids plead that they lost scholarships or opportunities because these comments damaged their reputations in the community?

[ReaderY]

Professor Volokh,

You are so grossly misrepresenting what this case is about that you are doing considerable damage to this girl’s reputation among your commentariat. This case is about a school whose administration was allegedly running a long-term cheating scandal favoring select students and whose principal was allegedly an organizer of the scandal. According to opinion, the student alleges the principal framed her by, after she left the school, falsely accusing her of being the ringleader of the scandal in order to cover up his own misconduct.

In the course of framing her, he falsely accused her of many clearly defamatory things, not just being the ringleader of the scandal but also having been expelled from the school as punishment for it, being a special ed student, having a long disciplinary record of trouble-making, and much else.

And yet you choose to focus on the couple of epithets that are arguably opinion rather than fact. While that’s understandable given your interests, you chose to present this case as if that were all this case was about, the ONLY things she was accusing her of.

And that’s just wrong. It presents this girl and/or her parents as frivolous litigators and the principal as an honest educator who merely rebuked her a little too much. Your commentariat is universally predicting, based on your representations (and accurately reflecting them), that she will be a highly unsympathetic plaintiff and that this suit is a total waste of a court’s time, that she is hair-trigger litigious and has bad character.

That’s just wrong. Where are your ethics? Why are you willing to further ruin an abused child’s reputation and add to her misery and wariness of adults just to illustrate some arcane professorial point about the fact/opinion distinction?

You could easily rewrite this post so as to present uour post without describing this case in such an absurdly misleading way.

These are real people whose lives you risk ruining by writing about them. And a child! Don’t you have any decency, sir? Where is your sense of compassion?

[David Nieporent]

I do admire how each time you tell what the case is about, you make up even more facts, writing a longer and longer screed based on nothing at all.

[ReaderY]

You’re saying the court’s opinion was based on nothing at all? Try reading it. Exactly what I am saying is there.

[David Nieporent]

I've asked repeatedly for where you got it from, and all you do is embellish your tale further and further. The court opinion says nothing like what you're claiming. Nothing about "favored students." Nothing about the administration "running the cheating ring." Nothing about "affidavits from other faculty members." Nothing about "framing" her, let alone as a "cover up."

[ReaderY]

Professor Volokh,

I’m going to double down and suggest this post may actually be legally defamatory and this girl’s family may be entitled to sue you. It tends to imply that she actually was a cheater and the principal merely went a bit overboard in calling her out. Obviously the ringleader of a cheating scandal who sues the principal for merely calling her a few names in the course of expressing the school’s reprehension at her behavior would be a very unsympathetic plaintiff indeed, a person of bad character.

Your article clearly creates this impression in your commentariat to the point where they are upset at my attempts to correct you. Because of your reputation and the way you have misused it here, they believe you, not me.

Please, please retract this post and rewrite it. You can write a post that accurately communicates the basic facts of this case and also mentions that, in the course of upholding the student’s ability to present her very serious and clearly legally sufficient defamation claim in its entirety, the court left in a couple of epithets the principal used, completely inncidental to the case’s gravaman, that were arguably opinion rather than fact.

The opinions of your commentariat as written on this blog are evidence of how the public perceives your post that could be used against you in litigation.

[ReaderY]

And you would not be entitled to fair reporting privilege because this cherrypicked and misleading report is not in any way a fair one.

[David Nieporent]

The post solely consists of quoting from the court's opinion. Prof. Volokh provided no commentary of his own, and 100% accurately reported the court's opinion. You're going more and more off the deep end.

[ReaderY]

He selectively cherrypicked the opinion in a way the prncipal’s defense lawyer could only hope to accomplish.

If someone is accused of committing a murder while wearing a red skirt, is it fair reporting to accurately quote only the portions of the opinion that mention the accusation of wearing a red skirt, and to do so in a way that tends to cause commentators like you to dismiss her claims as absurd and frivolous?