Appeals Court Revisits Defamation Case of Ex-School Board Member

News Summary

The appeals court is examining the defamation lawsuit filed by former school board member Ken Loveless against Leslie Stiles, who operated a critical Facebook page. After a previous ruling favored Stiles, Loveless aims to prove actual malice in his claim. This case highlights the complexities of defamation laws, particularly regarding public officials, amidst Loveless’s ongoing political and legal challenges.

Appeals Court Takes a Closer Look at Defamation Case Involving Former School Board Member

In the charming town of Lexington-Richland, a defamation lawsuit filed by former school board member Ken Loveless is making waves once again. After a ruling that left Loveless feeling defeated, things may not be over just yet. In 2022, Judge Jean Toal dismissed Loveless’ claim against Leslie Stiles, a local resident who ran the now-defunct Facebook page “Deep Dive Into D5.” The page was known for its critical comments about the school board, and Loveless was certainly less than pleased with the attention it brought him.

The Lawsuit’s Background

Loveless claimed that the comments posted by Stiles on her Facebook page were damaging to his reputation. However, Judge Toal ruled in favor of Stiles, primarily citing the protection offered to web operators under federal law and precedent set by the Supreme Court. These laws are designed to shelter individuals who host online platforms from liability when users make comments or post information. It seems Loveless’ case hit a wall when it couldn’t prove the required “actual malice” standard for defamation involving public officials.

What Happened Next?

In the wake of the lawsuit’s dismissal, Stiles made the decision to shut down the “Deep Dive Into D5” page, perhaps opting to avoid any more online controversies. But Loveless wasn’t ready to throw in the towel. His attorney, Desa Ballard, decided to appeal Judge Toal’s ruling. Ballard asserts that some comments made by Stiles were particularly harmful, including accusations of unethical behavior. This line of defense hinges on the belief that Stiles should be held responsible for the claims made on her page.

The Legal Standards at Play

To establish a successful defamation case, especially for public officials like Loveless, a legal standard must be met. In this context, “actual malice” refers to a knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In ruling against Loveless, Judge Toal noted that Ballard did not convincingly demonstrate this high threshold required under the law.

The Other Side of the Coin

Stiles’ attorney, Chris Kenney, was quick to defend his client, emphasizing that any critique of public officials typically enjoys protections under defamation law. According to Kenney, errors or lapses in judgment do not automatically rise to the level of actual malice. Furthermore, he pointed to the Communications Decency Act, which provides robust protections that Stiles might claim as a web operator concerning the statements made by other users.

Political Fallout for Loveless

Loveless found himself on the losing end of not just this legal battle but also at the polls. He lost his campaign for re-election on the school board in 2022, and attempts to regain his seat in 2024 did not end in success either. This legal saga, mixed with political challenges, certainly sheds light on the tumultuous landscape of local governance.

Challenging the Definition of Public Official

While Loveless was trying to scratch through the legal barriers, Ballard pointed out a surprising angle: whether Loveless should be considered a public official at all. She argued that his role as a part-time school board member might not fully classify him under existing definitions. The judges, however, seemed a tad skeptical about this argument, indicating that Loveless might still fit the bill.

Continuing Legal Battles

As if this wasn’t enough, Loveless is tangled in another legal web. He is currently pursuing a separate defamation lawsuit against an individual named Kevin Scully, who allegedly made defamatory remarks about him. This situation highlights the ongoing challenges Loveless faces and brings into focus the complex nature of defamation laws and public discourse in local communities.

With the appeals court taking a closer look at this controversial case, it will be fascinating to see how it unfolds. Love it or hate it, this issue underscores the significance of social media, free speech, and accountability in our daily lives.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

HERE Resources

Right-Wing Extremists Embrace Controversial Gesture at Trump Event
Ken Loveless Challenges $6,000 Ethics Fine in South Carolina
Fox Corporation Faces $2.7 Billion Lawsuit from Smartmatic
Conway’s Former Senate Candidate Ordered to Pay $76,000 in Frivolous Defamation Case
$15 Million Settlement Shakes Up Media and Political Landscape
Charleston County Couple Faces $289,000 Fine for Illegal Seawall Construction at Isle of Palms
South Carolina Republican Representatives Hewitt and Murphy Face Slander Lawsuit Over Defamation Accusations

Additional Resources

• Lexington Chronicle
• Wikipedia: Defamation
• The State – Crime News
• Google Search: defamation law
• The State – Crime Report
• Google Scholar: defamation case law
• The State – Education News
• Encyclopedia Britannica: Defamation

Author: HERE Lexington