First Amendment and Defamation Claims

First Amendment in Defamation and Other Claims

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Pennsylvania, has been central to numerous cases addressing issues such as free speech, defamation, retaliation, and the balance between constitutional protections and state interests. In the state context, a question arises – when are civil claims of defamation prevented by the First Amendment?

Pennsylvania courts have also considered whether there are broader protections afforded by Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution compared to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Both of these provisions stand for the freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religious beliefs/practices, among other considerations.

First Amendment civil rights cases are almost always filed in Federal Court, usually as a section 1983 action. These cases can be incredibly complex even though the issues seem simple. The  case law stretches back hundreds of years, is unique to many situations, and requires specialized lawyers to successfully prosecute and defend. The First Amendment can also be implicated in defamation cases. Some important cases follow:

In  Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau , 592 Pa. 66, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed the standards of fault in defamation cases, distinguishing between public and private figures. It emphasized the First Amendment's requirement for public figures to prove actual malice, while private figures may recover damages by proving simple negligence. The case also highlighted Pennsylvania's constitutional protections for reputational interests. So, basically, this case stands for the proposition it is more difficult for a public figure to recover damages based on a defamation action than a private individual.

In Gillette-Walker v. County of Centre, LEXIS 19025, a Common Pleas Court in Pennsylvania the court addressed prior restraint under the First Amendment, referencing landmark cases such as Near v. Minnesota and Bartnicki v. Vopper. This Court emphasized the strong protections against prior restraint, even when individuals, rather than the press, are involved. “Prior Restraint” is the idea that an authority figure or government cannot prohibit speech before it even occurs, and attempts to do so could violate the First Amendment. So, for example, if a government makes a prohibition on a certain kind of speech, that may infringe on your First Amendment Rights.

In  SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, 2008 PA Super 237, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania analyzed the constitutionality of restrictions on protests under the First Amendment. In this case, an injunction was issued against animal rights protestors who were accused of harassing employees of a pharmaceutical company.  The Court here found that while reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible, an outright ban on protests was overbroad and unconstitutional. The case is important in that it highlights the right to assembly can be reasonably curtailed in certain circumstances for public safety and welfare, but it cannot be absurdly overbroad.

In Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 634 Pa. 35, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the evolution of defamation law under the First Amendment, highlighting the conflict between presumed injury in common law and the constitutional requirement for plaintiffs to prove actual harm in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern. The case describes how important it is to show actual injury before a defamation case can be brought to a jury or a judge. Without a showing of actual injury there is no defamation case.

In J.S. v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 669 Pa. 536, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed the First Amendment's protections against content-based restrictions on speech, citing cases such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. and Ashcroft v. ACLU. In this case, a student was expelled from a school for sending another student a meme about a school shooting and another student jokingly called the “shooter.” The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania here determined that not only was the meme not a “true threat” it was also not a “substantial disruption” in that there was no demonstrable risk to student safety. The case is important in that it highlights differences in how school speech is treated. Free-speech activities that cause a substantial disruption in a public school can be curtailed by school administration.

In Corcoran v. Scranton Times, L.P., 2017 PA Super 127, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania highlighted the First Amendment's requirement for public figures to prove actual malice in defamation cases and the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate the falsity of statements involving matters of public concern. A classic defense defamation claims is that the words uttered were the truth. If a defendant can prove their words or utterances were true they may be able to successfully defend against an otherwise meritorious defamation claim.

In Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Doe, 2013 PA Super 292, the Superior Court considered the First Amendment's protection of anonymous political speech, emphasizing the importance of balancing free speech rights with the need for discovery in defamation cases.

In Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Correctional Officers v. Rendell, 701 A.2d 600, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania examined whether the Pennsylvania Constitution provides broader free speech rights in the context of labor relations, ultimately finding that there are no greater protections than the First Amendment. This case is strange in that it involved obscure Philadelphia ordinances and was an action brought against the then-mayor of the city, Ed Rendell. The case has since been undermined, most notably in 2024.

In Oberholzer v. Galapo, 322 A.3d 153, (Pa. 2024) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the broader protections of Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in various contexts, including political leafletting and commercial speech, compared to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. What this means is that Pennsylvania has stronger freedom of speech protections than the federal standard.

In Oberholzer, two neighbors got into an argument over political topics, and one of the neighbors, who was Jewish, started erecting signs on his property pointed at the other neighbor. Eventually one of neighbors filed suit against the Jewish family alleging private nuisance, defamation, and other claims. As part of the lawsuit, the filing neighbor filed for what is called an injunction – or an order forcing a party to do something – to remove the signs. The lower court agreed an issued the injunction.

Importantly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania specifically described Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania constitution an “ancestor and not a stepchild of the First Amendment [to the United States Constitution.” Furthermore, the Court claimed here that Pennsylvania has repeatedly determined that it offers to citizens greater freedom of speech rights than those under the United States Constitution. Numerous examples were cited where Pennsylvania has stronger freedom of speech and expression protections: nude dancing, commercial speech, advertising, political leafletting, and certain movie censorships. However, this does not extend to all free speech activities. After much legal discussion, the Court concluded that the injunction was unconstitutional but also that the tort of defamation was an entirely separate issue.

The Third Circuit of the Eastern District has also addressed numerous significant First Amendment cases, particularly focusing on issues such as retaliation, free speech, and the application of qualified immunity. These cases often involve public employees, government officials, and private citizens, highlighting the balance between constitutional protections and governmental interests.

In Neuberger v. Gordon, 567 F. Supp. 2d 622, a lawyer alleged First Amendment retaliation after county officials published defamatory statements and disclosed his private medical information. The court found that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the publication of newspaper ads but not for disclosing the lawyer's medical information. The state law claims were barred under Delaware’s County and Municipal Tort Claims Act.

In Gregory v. Chehi, 843 F.2d 111, a police officer claimed he was discharged for exercising his First Amendment rights. The district court applied collateral estoppel, but the appellate court held that the issue of a politically motivated discharge was not adjudicated in state court. Thus, the wrongful discharge claim against individual council members was not barred.

In O'Donnell v. Knott, 283 F. Supp. 3d 286, the court denied a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity in a First Amendment retaliation case. The plaintiff alleged that detectives threatened her for exercising her constitutional rights, and the court found sufficient allegations of personal liability under.

In LaTorre v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 253 F. Supp. 3d 812, a school district's chief security officer alleged First Amendment retaliation after speaking to a reporter. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff spoke as a citizen or employee, whether the speech involved a matter of public concern, and whether it was a substantial factor in the termination decision.

In Beckinger v. Twp. of Elizabeth, 697 F. Supp. 2d 610, police officers challenged an administrative directive preventing them from attending parking violation hearings. The court held that while the right to testify was protected under the First Amendment, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity due to uncertainty at the time regarding whether such testimony constituted speech as a citizen.

In Lahovski v. Rush Twp., plaintiffs alleged First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against township officials. The court emphasized that personal involvement in the alleged retaliation was necessary for liability and noted that complaints about the decertification of a police union could constitute protected First Amendment activity.

Conclusion

First Amendment cases and defamation cases can be complex. Defamation claims, in particular, are among the more challenging to prosecute. These issues often overlap, so understanding your rights and the requirements for proving a defamation claim is crucial.