Facebook comments about SC school board member are not libelous, defendant says
A man sued by a school board member over critical Facebook comments has filed counterclaims arguing the comments are true or protected speech and the board member is using the legal system to silence his critics.
Lexington-Richland 5 school board vice chair Ken Loveless filed suit in March against Kevin Scully, a district resident and husband of a teacher, over comments attributed to Scully that say “Crooked Ken is an unethical hypocrite and a liar,” call him a part of an “incompetent, micromanaging board majority,” and claim “The board seems to be more concerned with settling personal vendettas than taking care of our district.”
In his response filed Wednesday, Scully “denies he published any defamatory or untrue statements” about Loveless, and asks for a jury trial.
Scully says the comments cited in the complaint are “non-factual” and therefore cannot be defamatory.
“Loveless is a public figure and all statements he alleges are defamatory were statements on a matter of public concern in which Loveless was involved in his role as a public figure,” according to the response filed by attorney Andrew Radeker. “The Complaint fails to plead facts that would be necessary for Loveless to have a cause of action under the circumstances of this case.”
Scully asserts that any statements attributed to him are protected by his First Amendment rights to free speech, are true, “rhetorical hyperbole” or statements of opinion “not actionable under the law of libel.”
As a public figure, Loveless will have to prove “actual malice” to succeed in the suit. The heightened legal standards mean he must show that not only are the comments attributed to Scully false but that they were made either with malice or that he knew or should have known the comments were false at the time they were made. Scully denies any actual malice in his response.
Scully also makes counterclaims against Loveless, calling Loveless’ suit a “misuse and/or perversion of the legal process.” He claims the intent behind the suit is to silence Scully and other critics; force him to take down critical Facebook posts; investigate him, those he communicates with about the school board, and other Loveless critics, “including parents and teachers;” and discourage others from speaking out on school district issues ahead of November’s elections, when Loveless’ school board seat is up for a vote.
At least one district teacher is among nine people subpoenaed by Loveless to give statements under oath in the case beginning Thursday.
He asks Loveless be ordered to pay damages as swell as Scully’s attorneys’ fees.
Scully is one of two school district constituents currently being sued by Loveless. Leslie Stiles is being sued in part for running a Facebook group in which Scully allegedly made his comments. The group “Deep Dive Into D5” has since been frozen by the administrator, so that no new posts or comments can be made.
Stiles made a similar defense in her own response filed in a Richland County court last week, that the allegations are politically motivated and that “any purported harm to Loveless’s reputation were the result of his own actions and were unrelated to and was not caused by” the Facebook comments.
.jpg)