FOLLOW US

The defamation lawsuit brought by Sam Johnson, former CEO of telehealth firm VisuWell, against comedian Kathy Griffin has become a center of debate at the Sixth Circuit. During oral arguments, the judges engaged in lively discussions over whether Griffin's tweets, accused of defaming Johnson, should be protected as free speech. This legal dispute arises from a viral TikTok video that Johnson alleges was manipulated to portray him as homophobic, leading to a social media response from Griffin.

Johnson, along with his wife, Jill Johnson, has claimed that Griffin's social media comments, alongside reposting the allegedly edited video, inflicted damage on his mental health and resulted in embarrassment and reputational loss. The lawsuit centers on the question of personal jurisdiction.

Griffin's attorney, Michael J. Grygiel, contended that the nature of the internet was such that Griffin's comments weren't directed at VisuWell or Tennessee residents but rather to her entire social media audience. This argument prompted questions from the judges, with Circuit Judge Amul R. Thapar humorously suggesting that "Twitter insulates you? Elon Musk will be happy."

Chief Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Thapar pressed Grygiel on the implications of social media communication, comparing it to traditional methods like sending a letter. Grygiel argued that Griffin was speaking to her entire two-million-follower audience, while the judges sought to understand the reach of such online statements.

The Johnsons' attorney, Todd VanDerVeer McMurtry, emphasized that Griffin's tweets found an audience in Tennessee and should be seen as an appeal to her nationwide audience. He cited interactions with Griffin that indicated she sought information about Sam Johnson's status with VisuWell.

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit judges must grapple with whether Griffin's online comments are protected by the First Amendment and whether the case falls within the forum state's jurisdiction.

After the arguments, McMurtry expressed concerns that protecting social media influencers from liability for online speech might lead to a more toxic online environment. The judges said they needed to respect precedent but asked about a similar case in which Griffin was accused of doxing Covington Catholic High School students.

Representatives for Griffin have not commented on the case at this time.

Sam and Jill Johnson are represented by Todd V. McMurtry, Will Huber, and Lyndsay C. Smith.

Griffin is represented by Michael J. Grygiel, Cynthia E. Neidl, and Adam Siegler.

The case is Samuel Johnson, et al. v. Kathy Griffin, case number 23-5257, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit