|
Boston, MA — Can anyone sue for defamation over a general statement criticizing his entire industry? The Institute for Free Speech argues the answer must be no, as the alternative would expose speakers to sweeping liability and chill a wide range of speech on matters of public concern.
The Institute for Free Speech organized a broad coalition of organizations—including the Authors Guild, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and Public Citizen—in filing an amicus brief in Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. The brief, written by attorneys at Ballard Spahr LLP, urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to hold that statements about the lobster industry are protected by the First Amendment.
“Defamation lawsuits based on statements about large groups run counter to the core principles of free expression embodied in the First Amendment,” warns the brief, which explains that allowing such suits would force speakers to “account for the risk that a general statement could expose them to liability from thousands or even millions of potential plaintiffs.”
The case centers on a defamation lawsuit brought by trade associations representing over 5,600 Maine lobstermen against the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (MBAF) for statements about the impact of the lobster industry on North Atlantic right whales. The district court denied MBAF’s motion to dismiss, holding that MBAF’s general statements about the industry implied “each and every Maine lobsterman” endangers the right whale.
The brief argues that this ruling threatens core principles of free expression. “Authorizing such group-defamation actions would greatly expand the range of speech that is subject to civil liability and threaten citizens’ ability to speak out on issues of public concern,” the brief explains.
The amici emphasize that “courts have long rejected group-defamation claims, holding that a statement is actionable only if it is ‘of and concerning’ a specific plaintiff.” This rule, the brief notes, “prevents a plaintiff from attacking speech that does not directly impugn the plaintiff in particular, including speech addressed to matters of public concern.”
According to the brief, allowing such lawsuits would create a dangerous precedent: “If allowed, such actions would require courts to assess the accuracy and impact of general statements about entire industries, professions, political movements, religious and cultural groups, and even national or ethnic communities. Defamation law would then encompass a vast universe of constitutionally protected speech, eroding the protections of the First Amendment.”
The brief warns that the harm from statements about large groups is “remote, indirect, and uncertain,” and that affirming the district court could expose speakers to massive liability from countless individual plaintiffs.
The Institute for Free Speech and its coalition partners urge the First Circuit to reverse the district court, emphasizing that “the Constitution does not permit” a result that would “chill communication to the marrow” and allow “virtually every complaint of group libel” to proceed.
To read the amicus brief in the case, Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation, click here.
| 
