Purcell v. Ewing

Majority - Christopher C. Conner

No, the online postings do not constitute defamation under Pennsylvania law because they are statements of opinion and lack defamatory meaning. Under Pennsylvania law, a communication is defamatory only if it tends to harm the reputation of another, lowering them in the community's estimation or deterring third persons from associating with them. However, statements of opinion, without more, are not actionable. An opinion can only be defamatory if it can reasonably be interpreted as implying undisclosed facts of a defamatory nature. The first posting, which stated Purcell “looks to me like” someone accused of child molestation and a “pervert to look out for,” was couched exclusively in the language of opinion. It contained no factual assertions and explicitly invited readers to evaluate the photograph and form their own conclusions, making it a sarcastic expression of an unflattering opinion rather than a recount of defamatory falsehood. No reasonable reader could believe it derived from any implied defamatory facts. The second posting, suggesting Purcell had a “full time criminal defense attorney on his payroll” and calling him a “bully” and a “moron,” contained merely caustic insults akin to “vituperative outbursts.” It did not allege specific criminal actions or motives. The tenor was one of “blustering acrimony” and sarcasm, meant to “give vent to insult” rather than to make substantive allegations of criminal activity, and thus would not affect Purcell’s reputation. The final posting, questioning Purcell’s activities, suggesting he belongs “in the barn,” and again calling him a “pervert” and a “bully,” would likewise be interpreted by a reasonable reader as an angry, sarcastic outcry and an expression of personal hostility. Its caustic tone would lead reasonable readers to conclude Ewing was expressing emotional dislike, not providing a basis to alter their esteem for Purcell. Therefore, these comments also lacked defamatory meaning.