Flynn v. Cable News Network, Inc.

Background

Jack and Leslie Flynn sued Cable News Network, Inc. under Rhode Island’s false-light statute. They claimed that a CNN report falsely portrayed them as “QAnon followers.” The report concerned an October 2020 event called “Q Con Live!” and a broader discussion of QAnon, former President Trump, and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. It showed the Flynns for about two seconds standing beside Michael Flynn while he raised his right hand and said, “Where we go one, we go all,” a phrase the report described as a QAnon slogan. The Flynns sought $75 million in damages.

The Flynns originally asserted defamation per se and false light. Before this case was reassigned to Judge Subramanian, the court dismissed the defamation claim but allowed the false-light claim to continue. CNN moved for summary judgment on the remaining claim.

Legal standard and governing law

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence favorably to the Flynns, who would have had to present evidence supporting each required element of their claim.

Rhode Island’s false-light statute requires proof that the defendant published a false or fictitious fact implying an association that did not exist, and that the implied association would be objectionable to an ordinary reasonable person. Rhode Island courts have applied several defamation principles to false-light claims, including rules protecting opinions and requiring plaintiffs to prove falsity.

The alleged “QAnon followers” implication

The Flynns argued that CNN implied they were QAnon followers even though CNN did not expressly say so. The court assumed, without deciding, that the video was capable of creating that implication. It then analyzed the case as though CNN had expressly called the Flynns “QAnon followers.”

The court held that the statement was not defamatory because it was an opinion. Under the applicable law, an opinion is protected when it cannot be proved true or false or when it is a conclusion based on disclosed, nondefamatory facts. An opinion may still be actionable if it implies that the speaker possesses undisclosed defamatory facts, but the court concluded that this report did not do so.

Why “QAnon follower” was an opinion

First, the court held that “QAnon follower” was too indefinite to be verified as true or false. The record described QAnon as a fluid and evolving set of beliefs without a single core definition. The reporter whose testimony the Flynns relied on rejected the idea that QAnon had uniform beliefs or behaviors. CNN’s expert testified that QAnon was elastic, difficult to define, and lacked a coherent belief system. The Flynns’ expert also described it as an “a la carte belief system” without a formula for identifying belief in QAnon.

The court also considered the phrase’s context. The report used several descriptions of QAnon, including a community, a movement of Trump supporters, believers in a conspiracy theory, and a group associated with various political and social ideas. In the court’s view, those descriptions did not give “QAnon follower” a stable meaning. The word “follower” was also ambiguous because it did not establish how intense, conscious, or complete a person’s adherence had to be.

The court found the statement involved matters of public concern because the report addressed QAnon and its connections to January 6, former President Trump, and people associated with him. The Flynns’ status as private individuals did not change that conclusion. The court also noted that the report’s use of a clip showing Michael Flynn and his family members related to the public issue being discussed.

Second, the court held that the statement was an opinion based on disclosed, nondefamatory facts. Those facts were that the Flynns stood beside Michael Flynn with their hands raised while he repeated “where we go one, we go all,” and that the phrase was associated with QAnon. The Flynns did not dispute the authenticity of the clip or that the phrase was a QAnon slogan. The court concluded that CNN’s characterization was an inference drawn from facts shown to viewers, even if the Flynns believed the inference was unreasonable or based on too little information.

No implication of hidden defamatory facts

The court separately considered whether the opinion implied that CNN knew additional, undisclosed defamatory facts about the Flynns. It concluded that it did not. Because “QAnon follower” was open to many interpretations, a reasonable viewer would not necessarily infer that CNN had a particular secret factual basis for the label. And because the report showed the facts underlying the inference, viewers could evaluate those facts themselves.

The court rejected the Flynns’ arguments that the report improperly equated them with people involved in the January 6 attack or should have included additional context showing they were not QAnon followers. Those arguments concerned inferences viewers might draw from the opinion or whether CNN presented the Flynns fairly, rather than whether CNN implied undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for its opinion. The court stated that the false-light claim did not impose a general requirement to provide every possible piece of context.

Disposition

Judge Subramanian granted CNN’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that, even assuming the CNN report could imply that the Flynns were QAnon followers, that implication was not actionable. The court denied the motions to exclude and strike as moot because those motions could not change the outcome, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for CNN, and closed the case.