Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

JUSTICE: James Woods Scores Big Court Win!

The right decision.


Score one for the good guys!

You might recall a while back James Woods was sued for defamation over something he posted to Twitter in 2016.

Of course, a Snowflake got offended and actually sued him over it.

Well Woods is getting the final laugh, because a district court judge initially sided with Woods and threw the case out, and now the Appeals Court has upheld that ruling.

In other words?   It was a bogus case from the beginning!  

Congrats James, great win and the right decision!

Take a look:

Here's more on the big win, from US News:

A federal appeals court has rejected an Ohio woman's defamation lawsuit against actor James Woods over Twitter posts during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wednesday a lower court ruling dismissing the lawsuit by Portia Boulger of Chillicothe (chihl-ih-KAHTH'-ee), an activist for Democrat Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.

In March 2016, a Twitter account mistakenly identified Boulger as a woman who appeared to give a Nazi salute at a rally for then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Woods' account retweeted the photos, asking: "So-called #Trump 'Nazi' is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?"

Multiple outlets reported the photo was of another woman, and Woods eventually corrected his tweet.

The appellate judges found Woods' tweet "could reasonably be read to have an innocent meaning" as merely asking a question.

And here's more analysis, from CourthouseNews:

The inclusion of a question mark in a tweet posted by conservative actor James Woods about a woman giving a Nazi salute at a 2016 rally for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump lends enough ambiguity to the message that it is not defamatory, a Sixth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday. 

Actor James Woods poses at the premiere of the film “Bleed for This” in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Nov. 2, 2016. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File)

Portia Boulger, a Bernie Sanders supporter, sued Woods for defamation in 2017, after the actor tweeted a photo of Boulger alongside one taken of a woman giving the “Heil Hitler” salute at a Chicago rally for Trump.

Woods suggested Boulger may have been planted at the event, but it was eventually determined the woman giving the Nazi salute was Birgitt Peterson, a Trump supporter.

The actor’s March 12, 2016, tweet – which was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr., among others – read, in part, “So-called #Trump ‘Nazi’ is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative?”

Woods, who currently has over 2 million followers on the social media site, issued a correction after several news outlets identified the woman at the rally as Peterson.

He also eventually deleted the tweet and issued an apology to Boulger.

U.S. District Judge George Smith in Ohio granted Woods’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the question mark at the end of his original tweet allows for multiple interpretations.

Boulger appealed, and the case was argued in front of the Sixth Circuit last October. 

In Wednesday’s opinion, authored by Chief U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., the panel of judges upheld Smith’s ruling.

The three-judge panel used Ohio’s “four-prong, totality-of-the-circumstances test” to determine whether Woods’ tweet constituted a false statement of fact, and, for the first time, “confronted the issue of whether questions can (or cannot) be defamatory.” (Parentheses in original.) 

“Some readers,” Judge Cole wrote, “likely viewed the tweet as an insinuation that the woman in the Nazi salute photograph was Boulger. It seems equally plausible, though, that other readers interpreted the tweet as posing a question.” 

Consequently, Cole held the first prong of the test – specific language used – weighed against Boulger’s defamation claim. 

The verifiability of the statement is the second prong of the four-factor test, but because the tweet was posed as a question, Cole determined it weighed in neither party’s favor.

The judge moved on to the final prongs of the test, “general and broader context of the statement,” and analyzed them together.

The panel analyzed Woods’ tweet in the context of all the tweets he sent on March 12, 2016, and found that “although he posted news articles, his tweets were frequently accompanied by his own colorful commentary.” 

“These tweets,” Cole wrote, “illustrate that a reasonable reader of Woods’s tweets on March 12, 2016, likely knew that he made frequent use of sarcasm, exaggeration, and hyperbole – characteristics more likely seen in an opinion, rather than a statement of fact. Thus, the general context could lead a reasonable reader to believe the tweet at issue was not a statement of fact.” 

Cole opined that because Twitter is a medium that allows for the dissemination of both factual news stories and opinion, the broader context of the tweet did not weigh in either party’s favor.

The panel then turned to Ohio’s “innocent construction” rule, which holds that “a statement reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory and an innocent meaning must be construed, as a matter of law, to have an innocent meaning.” 

“Here,” Cole concluded, “the tweet at issue is reasonably susceptible to both a defamatory meaning – that Woods was asserting Boulger was the woman giving the Nazi salute – and an innocent meaning – that Woods was merely asking his followers a question. Because Woods’s tweet could reasonably be read to have an innocent meaning, under the innocent construction rule the tweet, as a matter of law, is not actionable.” 

Did you get yours? FREE while they last! ✅

We're giving these away FREE.  

We've paid to have them made, you cover shipping.

Only while they last.

Check availability here.



Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!