Le Havre Syllabus (Policies)

Syllabus: Litigating Reputation in America
1-5 June 2026, University of Le Havre

Instructor:
Rick J. Peltz-Steele
Chancellor Professor, University of Massachusetts Law School
333 Faunce Corner Rd., No. Dartmouth, Mass., USA
Ofc. tel. +1 508-985-1102; email rpeltzsteele@umassd.edu
The Savory Tort (personal blog), UMass Law, SSRN, YouTube

Course description. A study of American civil litigation and legal culture focusing on defamation and privacy. Litigation in the United States and France by Brigitte Macron over assertions about her gender identity highlights stark differences between how U.S. and French law protect personal interests such as reputation and privacy, and how the law balances competing rights, such as free speech and democratic participation. This study examines defamation and privacy litigation as a means to understand issues arising in the American system of civil dispute resolution, including years-long process, bankrupting awards, and whether justice is ever truly achieved. Coverage includes the substantive law of media torts (delict) in the common law tradition, and constitutional defenses, and incorporates civil procedural law and strategy in pleadings, motions, and discovery. The study ultimately points to larger questions about the durability of democracy in a post-truth society.

Learning objectives. By the end of the week students should have capability at an introductory level to:

  • articulate the basic elements of defamation and privacy torts in American common law;
  • articulate the legal implications of a free-speech constitutional defense to defamation and privacy torts;
  • compose element-driven allegations, responses, and discovery demands in American litigation;
  • construct basic verbal arguments on dispositive motions in American litigation; and
  • recognize the potential and limitations of American litigation as a system to resolve civil disputes over reputation and privacy to a client’s satisfaction.

Class meetings.  The class meets five times on a schedule to be determined by the local program of the faculty of law at Le Havre, from June 1 to June 5. Expect that we will be doubling up on Monday or Tuesday and skipping Wednesday.  Whatever the day-to-day schedule, we'll cover the five lessons in order.

Class materials.  All assigned content is linked to electronic sources below and at our course web page; there is no text to purchase. Links to in-class content will be added to the course web page during the week of the course. We will have to write and exchange work product in class. If everyone brings an electronic device, we can accomplish this writing and exchange electronically, with email, so please bring a device with which you can write and share. If everyone does not have a suitable device, we will fall back on pen and paper, so please prepare for that possibility, too.

Assessment.  Students are assessed qualitatively on their informed participation in a motions practice exercise in class (Thursday, 25%), on a settlement negotiation exercise in class (Friday, 25%), and on a final exam requiring multiple-choice and narrative responses (Friday, 50%). Assessment rubrics for exercises are posted in Assignments. Assessment is subject to the normative constraints of the local program. All conduct restrictions of the local program pertain to the course, including policies on attendance, accommodation, audiovisual recording, artificial intelligence, and academic integrity. 

Le Havre Syllabus (Assignments)

Assignments:
(This post updated May 26 with guidance documents for arguments and negotiations.)

LESSON ONE

Introduction to American defamation and privacy torts, and offensive pleadings.

In advance of class:

  • Read 2 Tortz ch. 15(A), pp. 451-453 (“Origin of ‘Media Torts’”), and ch. 15(C)(1), pp. 535-536 (“Invasion of Privacy: Framework and Rules,” before subpart (a)) (2025 ed.). Then look over the common law of defamation as described in the  RED BOXES  on pages 454-462 (ch. 15(B)), and the common law of invasion of privacy as described in the  RED BOXES  on pages 536-540 (ch. 15(C)). We will examine the red-box content more closely together in class, but it will help if you’re not seeing it for the first time.

o   For our study, you may download only chapter 15 of Tortz volume 2 (2025 ed.):

✔  Here from Dropbox. A Dropbox account is not required. Look for "Continue without logging in."

✔  Or here from Google Drive. A Google account is required.

o   Not required, but if you like, all "red-box" texts from volumes 1 and 2 of Tortz (2025 ed.) are compiled in a document you may download: Dropbox, Google Drive.

o   Not required, but if you like, the entire book, volume 2 of Tortz (2025 ed., chs. 9-18), can be downloaded here at SSRN. An SSRN account may be required for download and is free to create.

o   Not required, but if you like, the entire book, volume 1 of Tortz (2025 ed., chs. 1-8), also can be downloaded here at SSRN.

Remember to bring a writing and sharing device to class!  You will receive further case facts for simulation in class. We will draft pleadings and exchange work.

For your later reference, these items we may use in class, but you do not have to review them in advance. 

LESSON TWO

First Amendment defense, and defensive pleadings and motions.

Whichever day we double up, remember to prepare two lessons.

In advance of class:

  • Watch the video assigned (and hyperlinked) in 2 Tortz ch. 15(B)(5)(a), p. 494 (“Sea Change: N.Y. Times v. Sullivan” Assignment, same as follows): N.Y. Times v. Sullivan Summary, Quimbee (July 12, 2017).
  • Read 2 Tortz ch. 15(B)(5)(a), pp. 495-497 (Sea Change: Notes and Questions).
  • Read St. Amant v. Thompson (U.S. 1964): Dropbox, Google Drive.
  • Watch the four videos assigned (and hyperlinked) in 2 Tortz ch. 15(C)(1)(c), pp. 585-586 (“Bollea” Assignment, regarding Bollea v. Gawker (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2016), same as below):

o   Hulk Hogan, Gawker’s Civil Trial Over Sex Tape Continues, ABC News (Mar. 18, 2016).

o   Testimony Gets Explicit at Hulk Hogan-Gawker Trial, CBS News (Mar. 8, 2016).

o   Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million in Gawker Sex Tape Lawsuit, ABC News (Mar. 19, 2016).

o   How the Hulk Hogan Lawsuit Against Gawker Explains Litigation Finance, Bloomberg TV (Feb. 3, 2020).

  • Read FRCivP 12 and 56, on pp. 35-39, and pp. 149-52.

For your later reference, these items we may use in class, but you do not have to review them in advance.

LESSON THREE

Pretrial discovery.

In advance of class:

  • Read 2 Tortz ch. 15(B)(5)(c), pp. 516-17, 525-535 (Reconsidering Sullivan (introduction only, omitting Berisha case); Problem: Greenberg v. Horizon; (Greenberg) Notes and Questions). Not assigned, but referenced in class: home page of American Libel (2025).
  • Read FRCivP 26(b) and 34, at pp. 76-81, and pp. 106-109.
  • Watch Five Tips to Prepare for Oral Argument, Harlan Institute (Oct. 4, 2024). Understand that we are studying motions practice in trial court, not appellate arguments, but the principles are the same. 

LESSON FOUR

Motions arguments; other media torts. 

In advance of class, prepare motions arguments on assigned Case Studies. Here is a guidance document on skills and assessment for motions arguments:
     Dropbox     Google Drive

For your later reference, these items we may use in class, but you do not have to review them in advance.

LESSON FIVE

Anti-SLAPP, pretrial settlement negotiation; and final examination. 

In advance of class:

  • Watch the Global Law Classroom, “Principled Negotiation as Successful Negotiation,” by Prof. Jennifer Stevenson (Willamette University).
  • Prepare to negotiate the best possible outcome for your clients in assigned Case Studies. Key to negotiation is identifying the strengths and weaknesses of your client’s case, relative to the legal and practical issues we have covered.
  • Here is a guidance document on skills and assessment for settlement negotiations:
         Dropbox     Google Drive

For your later reference, these items we may use in class, but you do not have to review them in advance.

Final Examination

The exam may cover all assigned content and all in-class content.  The exam probably will comprise a multiple-choice section and an essay section; details to be announced.

### 

Le Havre Syllabus (Case Studies)

Case Studies:

These are case studies we will use in class. You are not responsible for all of them; we will assign case studies in our first class meeting. The case studies will be the subject of your motions arguments and settlement negotiations.

  • CASE ONE: Royall v. Dicks (Md.) (per se)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE TWO: Carter v. Jones (Wash.) (fact-opinion)
        Dropbox   Google   (Mary Jones at Medium)
  • CASE THREE: Andes Roofing v. Rusnak (Ky.) (fact-opinion)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE FOUR: Davenport Extreme Pools v. Mulfur (Ky.) (fact-opinion)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE FIVE: Andrews v. At World Properties (Ill.) (truth-falsity)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE SIX: Flickinger v. King (Ala.) (truth-falsity/CDM)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE SEVEN: Fells v. Service Employees Int’l Union (D.C.) (truth-falsity/implication)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE EIGHT: Gibson Bros. v. Oberlin College (Ohio) (fact-opinion)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE NINE: Michel v. New York Post (11th Cir. (N.Y. law)) (truth-falsity)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE TEN: Berisha v. Lawson (S.D. Fla. (Fla. law)) (private-public figure)
        Dropbox   Google
  • CASE ELEVEN: Evans v. Amazon.com (E.D. Wis. (Wis. Law))
    (invasion of privacy by disclosure: private facts, HORP, legitimate public interest) 
        Dropbox   Google    (Amazon video at TMZ)
 

Whiteboards from June 1

 

Example arguments in Loomer motions

 DEFENDANT/MOVANT

Good morning, your honors. I am Rick Peltz-Steele, and I represent defendants Bill Maher and HBO. We move under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim.

Defendants have been sued by Plaintiff Laura Loomer for telling a joke. Bill Maher is a comedian with a television show on HBO called "Real Time." Like every other late-night comedy TV host, Mr. Maher makes jokes about current events, often at the expense of high-profile public figures. On the October 21, 2024, broadcast of "Real Time," Mr. Maher joked delivered a short monolog about the sex life of the President of the United States. Mr. Maher said that because social media influencer Laura Loomer works so closely with the President, they must be in a sexual relationship. The audience laughed through the whole segment. Obviously Mr. Maher has no idea what happens in the President's bedroom. No one understood him to be asserting a fact.

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The alleged tort of defamation in the state of Florida requires that the defendant have made a false assertion of fact. In Turner v. Wells, the 11th Circuit made clear that statements of opinion are completely privileged. In distinguishing fact from opinion, the district court in Fortson v. Colangelo wrote that "context is paramount." The court must consider the context of publication; all the words used, not an isolated phrase; and the circumstances of publication, including the medium and audience.

For example, in Fortson, a sports commentators watching a basketball game described the plaintiff as a "thug" when commenting on his style of play. The court determined that no viewer understood the commentator to be accusing the player of criminal conduct.

Here, the context is a late-night comedy television program, in which the host routinely makes hyperbolic statements about public figures to elicit laughs. The words Mr. Maher used are themselves hyperbolic, as he talked about who the President is effing, using a vulgar expletive. The medium was entertainment television, and the audience tuned in for a comedy show.

This case is precisely like Fortson, in that the speaker's words understood in context cannot be taken as assertions of fact.

Because the plaintiff has failed to state an essential element of defamation, an assertion of false fact, we ask the court to dismiss this lawsuit.

--

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

Good morning, your honors. I am Rick Peltz-Steele, and I represent plaintiff Laura Loomer. We ask the court to reject the defendants' motion to dismiss.

This case is about an allegation of professional misconduct so serious that it constitutes slander per se and has had a devastating impact on the reputation of the plaintiff, who depends on her reputation and credibility in her profession as a social media personality and respected female leader in the Jewish community.

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss must be rejected if the plaintiff plausibly alleges the elements of a tort. Plaintiff is not required to prove the tort to survive dismissal.  Florida law requires that the plaintiff allege a false assertion of fact, and that is exactly what defendant Maher uttered.

In Turner v. Wells, the 11th Circuit did say that statements of opinion are privileged. However, the court also wrote that a statement of opinion is not shielded from liability if a reasonable hearer would infer a factual basis or factual conclusion. We agree with the defendants' reliance on Fortson v. Colangelo that "context is paramount." But appearing on a television show and making jokes does not mean that Mr. Maher can make any allegation he wishes, even plain assertions of fact. Turner and Fortson both recognized that an assertion of fact is not protected from liability because the speaker says "I think," and defamation by implication may be alleged if a reasonable hearer would understand an assertion of fact.

This case is unlike Fortson, because in Fortson, the plain visual context of the presentation was a sporting event in which the plaintiff executed a violent play. The word thug was used as a metaphor, for the player stealing the ball.  There is no metaphor in the instant case.  Mr. Maher vulgarly alleged an unprofessional sexual relationship, and that assertion is false.

A fact is an assertion capable of being proved true or false. Whether Ms. Loomer is in a sexual relationship with the President of the United States can be proved true or false. Ms. Loomer is prepared to prove that the assertion is false. She should have that opportunity to make her case to the jury. The motion to dismiss should be denied.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)