Judge Mia Roberts Perez issued an opinion on Monday in Monge v. Univ. of Penn.:
Dr. Janet Monge, a former curator of Penn Museum, filed a lawsuit against individuals and news outlets regarding statements made about her work with human bone fragments from the 1985 MOVE bombing in Philadelphia.
Hyperallergic Media, an online arts and current events magazine, published an article on October 31, 2021, alleging that Dr. Monge used human remains without consent for research purposes. Dr. Monge disputes this claim and asserts that the article falsely accuses her of conducting a racially motivated investigation.
According to Pennsylvania law, even if individual statements are true, if they collectively create a false implication, the speaker may be held accountable for defamation. Dr. Monge maintains that despite her efforts to obtain consent from the MOVE family, she was unable to retrieve a DNA sample for identification purposes.
Furthermore, Dr. Monge alleges that the article implies she disregarded objections from Consuewella Africa, the mother of one of the deceased, in using the bone fragment remains for teaching purposes. The court must determine whether the article’s implications could be reasonably construed as defamatory.
Dr. Monge also claims that she tried to contact Consuewella Africa through a local writer, Malcolm Burnley, but no meaningful conversation took place. Despite this, the article suggests that Dr. Monge was warned by Ms. Africa not to use the remains, which Dr. Monge denies.
The court notes that while there may be innocent interpretations of the article, the potential defamatory meaning must be considered. The article’s opinions could be seen as casting Dr. Monge in a negative light, leading to potential liability for defamation by implication.
Ultimately, the court finds that the article’s implications, particularly regarding Dr. Monge’s interactions with Consuewella Africa, could be construed as defamatory. The case will proceed based on these allegations.
My initial reaction: The court’s decision appears sound, although the “defamation by implication” theory may not align perfectly with the alleged libel claims.
The crux of the issue lies in the discrepancy between the statement about lack of consent (true) and the assertion of objections (disputed). The implication of wrongdoing seems to stem from the inaccurate claim of objections rather than the truthful statement about consent.
It is worth noting that the court dismissed claims against defendants who only discussed the use of the remains without making the contentious “objections” statement.
