This article was reprinted with permission from .听
A Northern Virginia court in June rejected social media efforts to damage the reputation of a teacher and parent, awarding them more than $1 million in combined damages.
Robert Rigby Jr., a longtime educator and advocate for LGBTQ+ students, said after the leader of conservative political action committee Virginia Project posted unfounded accusations that he was a child sex predator online, his students鈥� interest in the Latin course he teaches wavered.
鈥淲hen rumors started spreading that kids didn鈥檛 even take my class because these things were being said 鈥� that鈥檚 always every teacher鈥檚 fear,鈥� . 鈥淚t鈥檚 always every gay teacher鈥檚 fear.鈥�
The students鈥� reaction emphasized that the remarks weren鈥檛 simply harsh opinions, Rigby said, but false statements that carry consequential weight.
Across the country, social media campaigns targeting educators have been on the rise, including in and , amid contentious school board politics that test the legal boundaries of free speech and defamation.
Rigby and the other plaintiff, Vanessa Hall, who are both active in Fairfax County Public Schools committees and advocacy, alleged that defendant David Gordon, founder of the Virginia Project, used his X account to publish false and malicious statements that damaged their personal and professional reputations.
The case
痴颈谤驳颈苍颈补鈥檚 law was central to the case, highlighting the legal limits of false speech, the civil liability it can create, and the policy gaps it exposes for people 鈥� including teachers 鈥� when the legal requirements are met.
Jason Zellman, the attorney who represented Hall and Rigby, said that Virginia has laws that protect opinions and silence criticism with the anti-SLAPP defense. Still, he says, accusatory public statements must have a factual basis.
鈥淎nd in this case鈥� we had very declarative, actual statements that these individuals were child sex predators. They were part of a 鈥榞rooming gang.鈥� They were part of a 鈥榗hild abduction scheme,鈥欌�� Zellman said, quoting Gordon鈥檚 claims. 鈥淭here was no qualifying language, and more importantly, there was no evidence at all, zero, to back up any of these statements.鈥�
In their complaints, Rigby also alleged Gordon labeled him and Hall as 鈥渘otorious child sex perverts鈥� with 鈥渇ree run of FCPS.鈥�
Hall said Gordon mischaracterized her as an 鈥渆mployed crazy person with zero qualifications鈥� who was given inappropriate access to children. The claims that she was involved in sexual crimes against children disturbed her the most, she said.
鈥淎s a parent, as a Girl Scout leader, as a Sunday school teacher, as an advocate for children鈥檚 safety, that is frankly the worst thing you could say about anyone,鈥� Hall said.
A year after the complaints were filed, juries in both cases ruled in favor of Hall and Rigby, awarding $700,000 and $350,000, respectively.
Zellman said he is preparing for an expected appeal by Gordon.
Policy reform
Rigby and Hall鈥檚 case drew attention to the state鈥檚 policy gaps concerning defamation, especially around punitive damages and fee recovery.
Zellman and Hall argued that 痴颈谤驳颈苍颈补鈥檚 legal framework still tilts unfairly against defamed teachers because the state鈥檚 anti-SLAPP law can require plaintiffs to pay the other side鈥檚 legal bills if they lose.
The state鈥檚 punitive damages cap was set at $350,000 in the late 1980s in such cases, and standards on jury award limits, even for egregious cases, haven鈥檛 been updated since then.
鈥淚t just doesn鈥檛 seem appropriate,鈥� Hall said.
Zellman added that if the court had instead found the statements made by Gordon and the Virginia Project were an expression of opinion, didn鈥檛 rise to the level of defamation, or were speech protected by the First Amendment, they could become liable for the defendant鈥檚 costs and attorneys鈥� fees.
鈥淲hat I think is a shortcoming in the law is that 鈥� there鈥檚 not a similar reciprocal provision that if Robert and Vanessa prevail, as they did in this case, that they get their attorneys鈥� fees and costs reimbursed,鈥� Zellman said. 鈥淎nd I do think it would provide both an incentive and caution for any party 鈥� that you have to be pretty sure about your position.”
Tips for educators
Attorney Jason Zellman offered several practical points for teachers and parents who become targets of defamatory online attacks.
First, he said, preserve evidence immediately.
鈥淲hen these statements are made about you, and especially in the world of social media that we live in now, capturing those statements before they鈥檙e gone is number one to preserve evidence,鈥� Zellman said. 鈥淧eople can delete their tweets, remove Instagram posts, whatever it may be, and so having that evidence is important.鈥�
He also recommended teachers understand their legal rights and what constitutes free speech. Educators should seek legal advice.
