What defenses would a crisis-PR shop raise?
- Truth, opinion, and rhetorical hyperbole.Truth is absolute. Pure opinion, or hyperbole that no reasonable reader treats as stating facts, is protected under Milkovich and its progeny. Labeling speech as “opinion” isn’t magic—courts examine context to see whether readers would perceive factual assertions. Legal Information Institute
- Fair report privilege. Accurately summarizing official records or proceedings (e.g., quoting from filed pleadings) is often privileged; PR commentary untethered to official proceedings is not. The Free Speech Center
- Anti-SLAPP. In New York, defendants can seek early dismissal and fees unless the plaintiff shows actual malice with evidence, not speculation. Reporters Committee
- Section 230 does not fit. CDA §230 protects online platforms for third-party content; it does not shield a PR firm that creates or develops the statements at issue. If the firm authored scripts, posts, or talking points, 230 is no refuge. gov Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
How the current record might map onto those rules
The reported emails and decks show a team anticipating reputational combat—e.g., fee increases due to feared “Swiftie” blowback and “scenario planning” that includes redirecting press to other celebrities. Standing alone, that looks like strategy, not defamation. To cross the line, there must be provable false facts about Lively disseminated to third parties (or implications crafted to convey a false factual message), coupled with evidence the PR professionals knew those facts were false or recklessly ignored their likely falsity.
