Massachusetts Superior Court Judge John Pappas recently issued an opinion in Lucey v. Kinnon, which was decided last month and has just been posted on Westlaw. In his opinion, Judge Pappas stated:
Mr. Kinnon’s allegedly defamatory statement was made in response to a comment by Mr. Lucey on a post published by Mr. Kinnon in the Facebook Group “Malden (MA) Politics,” which has over 2000 members and serves as a platform for discussing local events and political issues in the Malden area. Mr. Lucey claims that he and Mr. Kinnon have a history of online exchanges dating back years, with Mr. Kinnon allegedly making derogatory remarks about Mr. Lucey’s legal skills and intellectual abilities. The comment in question reads:
“I am beginning to wonder if you are capable of reading. Might want to read again and anyone who would hire you as an attorney God Bless them, because someone must have taken the bar exam for you. Read below again for my answer to Mr. Bernstein, it might help you.”
Upon examination, it is evident that Mr. Kinnon’s comment is not intended to convey factual information but rather uses exaggerated language to insult Mr. Lucey. For instance, despite knowing that Mr. Lucey is literate based on their previous interactions, Mr. Kinnon sarcastically questions his reading ability. Additionally, the statement “someone must have taken the bar exam for you” is clearly hyperbolic and reflects Mr. Kinnon’s frustration with Mr. Lucey’s earlier comment.
It is important to note that Mr. Kinnon did not assert as a fact that someone took the bar exam for Mr. Lucey but rather speculated about it, mirroring his sarcastic tone in questioning Mr. Lucey’s reading ability. Given the nature of exchanges on platforms like Facebook, which often involve petty disputes, it is unreasonable to assume that a reasonable Facebook user, especially one interested in local politics, would question Mr. Lucey’s professional ethics or qualifications based solely on Mr. Kinnon’s comment.
Before using this case as a basis to make unwarranted remarks, it is worth noting that there is now legal precedent supporting the assertion that “Volokh is correct.”
