Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of Iowa (US) affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Richard Bauer’s defamation claim against Bradley Brinkman, holding that Brinkman’s use of “slumlord” on Facebook constituted protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than a factual assertion. The dispute arose when Brinkman called Bauer, manager of Bauer Apartments, a “slumlord” on Gabbie Lynch’s social media post because Bauer objected to the construction of a neighbouring dog care facility. The Court reasoned that the context surrounding the use of a term must be considered to determine whether it is protected as rhetorical hyperbole. The Court noted that his tone “was pointed, exaggerated, and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage”, thus alerting readers that the statements were expressions of personal judgment. The Court observed that on Lynch’s social media post there was no discussion regarding Bauer’s management of properties. The Court further noted that Brinkman did not attempt to provide any support for the statement that Bauer was a slumlord; therefore, a reader was alerted it was an insult and a “single, excited reference” rather than a factual assertion that he was an unscrupulous landlord.

Facts

Richard Bauer, the plaintiff who manages Bauer Apartments in Sloan, Iowa, brought forth a defamation action against Bradley Brinkman, the defendant and a fellow Sloan resident. [p. 1-3] The dispute arose from a Facebook post by Brinkman in which he referred to Bauer as a “Slum Lord.” This post was part of a broader discussion involving concerns raised by Bauer about the construction of a neighboring dog care facility named Pet Perfect LLC. [p. 2]

The District Court sided with Brinkman, reasoning that the context of Brinkman’s statement indicated an intent to insult Bauer rather than make factual claims about the quality of Bauer Apartments. Therefore, it concluded that Brinkman’s statement was a “constitutionally protected expression of opinion” and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Bauer, dissatisfied, applied for further review, which was granted, prompting a closer examination of the case by the higher court. [p. 2]

Decision Overview

Chief Justice Christensen of the Supreme Court of Iowa delivered this ruling, in which all other justices joined. Before the court, the main issue for consideration was whether Brinkman was liable for defamation or not. The Court was required to determine whether a reasonable reader could conclude that Brinkman’s Facebook comment implied a factual statement that Bauer is a rental property owner or landlord of a slum area. [p. 6]

While reviewing legal precedents on the same point, the Court emphasized that “a statement that is precise and easy to verify is more likely a fact than an opinion,” as established in Jones’ case, 440 N.W.2d. [p. 6] For instance, according to the Court, an accusation that a person committed a crime was an instance of a defamatory statement capable of precise meaning and easy verification. Conversely, statements lacking precision or verifiability, such as describing a greyhound racing dog kennel as “substandard and poor performers,” were deemed opinions in Yates, 721 N.W.2d at 773. The Court had previously held that a defamatory statement that a plaintiff reads at a third-grade level was considered precise and specific, making it verifiable [Jones, 440 N.W.2d at 892].

The Court acknowledged that in certain contexts, such as in Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1032 (Del. 1998) (en banc), the term “slumlord” could be assigned a precise meaning. In Ramunno, the Delaware Supreme Court observed that the term slumlord had precise meaning as used in the article because it was supported by fact-specific statements. The article stated that the plaintiff owned seventy properties and reprinted allegations that he had “done well through poorly-maintained surface parking lots and rental homes.” [p. 7]

The Court observed that the context of Brinkman’s comment shows that his statement was rhetorical hyperbole rather than an assertion of facts. The court noted that his tone “was pointed, exaggerated, and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage”, thus alerting readers that the statements were expressions of personal judgment. The court observed that he stated, “It is because of shit like this that I need to run for mayor!” followed by a grinning emoji, and that Bauer is a “PIECE OF SHIT!!!” before calling him a slumlord. [p. 11] Here, the Court referred to Wahrendorf v. City of Oswego, 899 N.Y.S. 502, 503– 04 (App. Div. 2010) where the court determined that statements made on the internet that the plaintiffs were slumlords and sociopaths and their property was a garbage heap and pigpen was name-calling and general insults because the tone was intended to be humorous and sarcastic. [p. 11]