Music Teacher’s Defamation Lawsuit Against StopAntisemitism Thrown Out

From Lewis v. StopAntisemitism, decided Friday by Judge Adrienne Nelson (D. Or.):

Plaintiff is a professional musician who has worked as a private music teacher for over thirty years. During the 2023-2024 school year, plaintiff worked as an independent contractor at Valley Catholic Music School … [teaching] private violin and cello lessons to Valley Catholic students in practice rooms across the K-12 campus. Plaintiff also taught strings classes to students and non-student community members at Valley Catholic’s summer camp.

“Prior to August 2024, [plaintiff] posted some of [her] opinions regarding certain geopolitical events, including but not limited to the war in Gaza and its occupation by Israeli armed forces, on [her] personal Facebook page.” Plaintiff expressed these views “entirely outside of the summer music camp and the private lessons with [her] students at Valley Catholic” and did not share or discuss these opinions with her students.

StopAntisemitism is a national organization focused on highlighting threats to Jewish safety and civil rights. One of the ways it seeks to do this is by publishing recurring features “designed to inform the public about antisemitism expressed by public figures, educators, activists, and institutions,” including a recurring feature entitled “Corrupting the Classroom.” Through the “Corrupting the Classroom” feature, StopAntisemitism shares publicly accessible statements made by various educators, along with defendants’ commentary on the statements. On August 21, 2024, StopAntisemitism shared on its X.com profile a “Corrupting the Classroom” feature focused on plaintiff. The feature, which was spread across several X posts, includes screenshots of statements plaintiff made on her public Facebook account, archived links to those Facebook posts, and defendants’ statements about plaintiff and her posts.

Defendants’ first posts begin by stating, “Warning to parents of students in Beaverton, OR. Valley Catholic High School’s Sue Lewis is not just instructing in the music school—she’s using her platform to spread vile antisemitic hate online.” Following that is a bulleted list that states that plaintiff “claims Israel killed its own citizens during the October 7th massacre by Hamas terrorists[, ] calls upon Hamas to destroy Israel[, and] denounces the atrocities of Hamas against innocent Israeli victims.” The next post begins, “Sue Lewis continues her antisemitic tirades.” It is then followed by its own bulleted list, stating that plaintiff “denies the Jewish connection to Israel[; ] claims Jews control humanity, a dangerous trope[; and] labels Zionism (Jewish self-determination) a terror movement based on Jewish supremacy.”

The post concludes by stating, “Students at [Valley Catholic] are in grave danger under Sue Lewis. Concerned? Email info@valleycatholic.org.” Below the final statement is an archived list of plaintiff’s Facebook posts. Screenshots of AntiSemitism’s posts are shown below:

Four of plaintiff’s archived posts are particularly relevant to this motion. The first is a photograph, which plaintiff posted on February 16, 2024, that appears to show plaintiff wearing a black-and-white keffiyeh. The remaining four posts contain only text. The first post, which was shared by plaintiff on November 2, 2023, states, “Yeah these Hamas militants are going to wipe out Israel with their homemade bombs, small arms, hang gliders, grenades and slingshots. Be afraid, be very afraid.” The second post, which plaintiff shared on October 22, 2018, states, “If Jewish people want their own state they shouldn’t not put it on some else’s state. Genocide is no way to make a state!”

The third post, which plaintiff shared on April 4, 2024, appears to show a dictionary-style definition of “Zionism” as “[a]n inherently violent & terroristic movement for colonizing Palestine through the theft of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians in order to create a Jewish-supremacist settler colony.” The fourth and final post, which plaintiff shared on October 21, 2018, states, “Zionist Jews have managed to mentally condition humanity to accept and remain silent as they commit genocide in Palestine.” … Following defendants’ feature, plaintiff “received a torrent of hateful comments and direct messages, some of which were violent and threatening, from strangers who had read” the posts.

On August 21, 2024—the same day that StopAntisemitism shared its feature on plaintiff—Valley Catholic informed plaintiff that it would not be renewing her contract for the 2024-2025 school year….

Defendants moved to dismiss the case under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for prompt dismissal of legally meritless lawsuits that are brought over speech on matters of “public interest.” The court agreed that the posts were indeed on such matters:

Although the parties debate the exact scope of the challenged posts, the outcome is the same under either framing. Defendants argue the posts concern antisemitism, Israel, Palestine, and the war in Gaza—topics plaintiff concedes are issues of clear public interest. Plaintiff counters that the posts’ messaging is far narrower, cabined strictly to plaintiff’s personal views on these issues. Plaintiff, however, is an educator, and the public is indeed interested in educators’ viewpoints on controversial topics, particularly where the educator has posted those viewpoints online for the world to see….

And the court concluded that the claim was indeed legally meritless:

[A]ll the challenged statements are protected opinions under the First Amendment….

Plaintiff challenges four statements here. The first is one of several bullet points listed under the statement “Valley Catholic High School’s Sue Lewis is not just instructing in the music school—she’s using her platform to spread vile antisemitic hate online.” The first challenged statement then reads: (1) “calls upon Hamas to destroy Israel.” The second and third statements are bullet points that follow the statement, “Sue Lewis continues her antisemitic tirades.” These statements read: (2) “denies the Jewish connection to Israel,” and (3) “claims jews control humanity, a dangerous trope.” Fourth and finally, plaintiff challenges a statement that follows the second list of bullet points. That statement reads: (4) “Students at @_ValleyCatholic are in grave danger under Sue Lewis.” …

None of these statements, when read in context, imply the assertion of objective fact. First, the general tenor of defendants’ posts negates the impression that defendants were asserting objective facts about plaintiff. Viewed contextually, defendants’ statements clearly express their interpretation of plaintiff’s own posts. The posts begin by stating that plaintiff is “using her platform to spread vile antisemitic hate online,” and conclude by stating “Lewis’ posts are listed below.”

Photos of plaintiff’s posts are shown below defendants challenged statements, as are the archived links to plaintiff’s original Facebook posts. Considering the links to plaintiff’s posts, the very nature of defendants’ “feature,” the clear motivation of the author—who is named StopAntisemitism in the challenged posts—and the opinionated wording used, the general tenor of the posts strongly suggests that the statements reflect only the author’s opinions about the words plaintiff chose to share online.

Viewers are invited to read the posts plaintiff herself shared alongside defendants’ characterizations. If defendants were claiming that plaintiff said the exact statements at issue, there would be no reason for defendants to also include plaintiff’s actual wording in the posts. Any concern that defendants were misquoting plaintiff is put to rest by reading plaintiff’s own statements….

The general tenor of defendants’ posts commands the same outcome here. “[D]ivorced from [their] context,” the challenged statements “might convey the impression that plaintiff identifies,” but “[l]ooking at the entire statement,” defendants are sharing their interpretations of plaintiff’s words, not stating that plaintiff herself made the exact claims defendants wrote.

Second, defendants used hyperbolic language that negates the impression of fact. Indeed, the entire statements at issue are themselves hyperbolic descriptions of plaintiff’s own postings—which again is made clear when viewing the statements in context. The specific wording defendants used is also hyperbolic, describing plaintiff’s posts as “antisemitic tirades” and accusing plaintiff of “spread[ing] vile antisemitic hate online.” Even the use of the phrase “grave danger” is hyperbolic and clearly based on defendants’ views about the words plaintiff shared online. Courts have found similarly extreme claims to constitute rhetorical hyperbole when viewed in context….

Whether the statements are susceptible to bring proven true or false is a tricker question but ultimately nondispositive. “Although plaintiff may be correct that the question of” what she called upon, denied, and claimed is “something that is susceptible of being proved true or false, the question here is whether the assertions communicated by defendant[s’] statements are ones that are susceptible to being proved true or false.” When viewed in context as Neumann requires, defendants’ statements represent their interpretation of plaintiff’s words and thus defendants’ personal viewpoints. Because “the expression of a personal viewpoint is not something that is susceptible to being proved true or false,” defendants’ statements cannot constitute actionable defamation….

The court also rejected plaintiff’s false light, tortious interference with economic relations claim, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, for similar reasons; an excerpt:

“The same rationale that underlies” the Court’s decision on those claims “—concern for the free speech implications of penalizing political advocacy—applies with equal force with respect to [the tortious interference] … claim.” … [And d]efendants’ postings, which contain defendants’ constitutionally protected opinions alongside plaintiff’s own words, are not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim must therefore fail as well….

It appears likely that plaintiff will therefore have to pay defendants’ legal fees, since the Oregon anti-SLAPP statute so provides when a defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion is granted; but the amount of the fees is presumably a matter for further proceedings.

Abra Siegel (National Jewish Advocacy Center) and James L. Buchal (Murphy & Buchal LLP) represent defendants.