On October 24, 2024, the Appellate Division in New Jersey issued a decision in Herman v. Muhammad affirming a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a defamation and false light invasion of privacy action filed by a teacher against a woman who made Instagram and Facebook posts which were allegedly false and malicious. The social media posts concerned the alleged removal of a seven-year-old student’s hijab in class by the teacher.
The Appellate Division’s decision did not express the court’s views on the merits of the teacher’s claims but did hold that her amended complaint pled sufficient facts to establish that the social media posts were made with actual malice – one of the elements the teacher had to prove to establish her claims since the allegedly defamatory statements concerned a matter of public concern. The Appellate Division found that the complaint “detailed facts questioning whether [defendant] knew or had serious doubts about the veracity of the student’s reports of the incident” and that there were other allegations in the complaint which could be “viewed as evidence of [defendant’s] subjective intent in her posts.”
Social media provides many platforms on which people can express themselves. However, while a posting party can argue that a post was truthful or a matter of personal opinion, poorly choosing the words in a social media post can have serious consequences, as shown by the Appellate Division’s decision in Herman.
[View source.]
