SC school board member’s libel suit seeks to ‘chill’ critics, parent says in response
The woman sued by a Lexington-Richland 5 school board member over critical comments in her Facebook group says in a sharply worded legal response that the lawsuit is an attempt to violate her free speech rights and chill critics of a public official ahead of an election.
The response filed Wednesday by Leslie Stiles is the first in a pair of lawsuits filed by Lexington-Richland 5 vice chair Ken Loveless against constituents who have made comments about him on social media that Loveless claims are defamatory.
Stiles is the administrator of the Facebook page Deep Dive Into D5, as well as the mother of three Lexington-Richland 5 students, she says in her response. The group had about 2,500 users before the Facebook page was frozen last month in response to Loveless’ defamation claims.
“When I started this group page in October 2020, I wanted to share information about our schools, how our District was being run, and how we can improve our children’s education,” Stiles said in a new Facebook post Wednesday. “Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that a public official would sue me for exercising my First Amendment right to speak about our public schools or for the things other people said in a Facebook group I created.”
That chilling effect on citizens’ speech was intentional, the response to the lawsuit claims.
“This litigation is frivolous harassment of a private citizen by a public official designed to chill her speech and participation in matters of public concern,” reads Stiles’ response, filed by attorney Christopher Kenney of the Harpootlian Law Firm.
Stiles also makes counterclaims against Loveless, arguing that his suit is meant to silence her and other critics of Loveless’s actions as a public official.
“Loveless intends to use this lawsuit to investigate Stiles, the Facebook group she administers, the people she has communicated with about him and about District 5, and her participation in District 5 politics,” her response argues. He hopes to “discourage or ‘chill’ other citizens interested in District 5 and its board from criticizing him” ahead of November’s election, when Loveless’ seat on the school board will come up for a vote, Stiles alleges.
The State reported this week that nine other people in Lexington-Richland 5, including at least one school teacher, have already received subpoenas to answer questions under oath about Loveless’ lawsuit.
Stiles asks for a jury trial to award her damages for the “misuse or perversion of legal process.” She also points out the initial lawsuit misspelled her name as “Lesley.”
She claims a number of defenses to Loveless’ libel claim, including that comments on the Deep Dive page are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the S.C. Constitution and that the comments are substantively true, expressions of opinion and/or “rhetorical hyperbole.” Stiles says all the comments cited in Loveless’ suit concern Lexington-Richland 5 and Loveless’s role as a member of the school board.
As far as claims that Stiles is legally responsible for comments made by others in the group, she claims she is protected by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
That federal law is meant to protect companies like Facebook and Twitter from being sued over the content users post to their sites. But Stiles’ argument extends that to the administrator of a Facebook group — a user who creates a page where other users are allowed to post and comment.
The response filed Wednesday goes on to say “any purported harm to Loveless’s reputation were the result of his own actions and were unrelated to and was not caused by the conduct Stiles is alleged to have taken,” and that Loveless himself has “self-published and/or disseminated the allegedly libelous statements to third parties.”
Of the comments in Loveless’ lawsuit attributed to Stiles herself, many revolve around ethics complaints about Loveless’ relationship with a construction firm that formerly worked on an elementary school in the district. Loveless’ contracting company worked with Contract Construction on another project outside the district, at the same time Contract was building Piney Woods Elementary School, a project that Loveless often criticized.
Other school board members criticized Loveless at the time for having a conflict of interest. Loveless ultimately recused himself from any votes on Piney Woods last year, and the S.C. Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion that Loveless could not visit the elementary school site or review documents related to the project.
The ethics commission recently released documents confirming an open ethics investigation into Loveless’ handling of his handling of his relationship with Contract Construction.
“Mr. Loveless had an EC (Ethics Commission) opinion requiring his recusal from certain matters and he refused for a length of time,” one comment attributed to Stiles in the lawsuit reads. “This SEC (State Ethics Commission) Ethics Opinion . . . further states that Mr. Loveless may not in anyway attempt to use his position to influence decisions. Has Trustee Loveless complied with these requirements? Sadly, he has not.”
Stiles also denies acting with “actual malice” and says she relied on information provided by others. That’s key because, as a public figure, Loveless must prove that not only are the comments attributed to Stiles false but that they were made either with malice or that she knew or should have known the comments were false at the time they were made.
It’s a high bar that can be difficult for elected officials and other high-profile individuals to prove, but that hasn’t stopped some from engaging in so-called SLAPPs — strategic lawsuits against public participation.
The California Anti-SLAPP Project defines a SLAPP primarily by its effect on public speech. “While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they can effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues,” the organizations says on its website.
.jpg)