"Community Interest Privilege" as Protection Against a Charge of Defamation

Florida has no "Community Interest Privilege" protection as far as I know, but the Florida HOA law (FS 720) has a lengthy section on "SLAPP Suits". I assume the condo statute has something similar.

"Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits by governmental entities, business entities, and individuals against parcel owners who address matters concerning their homeowners’ association will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of parcel owners, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state."

The statute is wordy and I think "addressing matters concerning their HOA" might be confined to speaking or presenting to governemt agencies their opinions. The statute defines "governmental entity" and the definition does not include HOA boards, so an owner ranting about a PM at a board meeting that incurs the wrath of the PM to the point of suing the owner for defamation might not fall under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Geno, thank you for sharing what you know of Florida law on this matter. I think I get what you are saying, regarding the likelihood of the SLAPP statute protecting a HOA Member, who criticizes a HOA employee at a meeting, from an actionable claim of defamation.

Here's the interesting California "community interest privilege" statute that seems to have obtained a lot of traction in California HOAs:

CIVIL CODE - CIV
47.
A privileged publication or broadcast is one made:
(c) In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information. This subdivision applies to and includes a communication concerning the job performance or qualifications of an applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon request of, one whom the employer reasonably believes is a prospective employer of the applicant. This subdivision authorizes a current or former employer, or the employer’s agent, to answer whether or not the employer would rehire a current or former employee. This subdivision shall not apply to a communication concerning the speech or activities of an applicant for employment if the speech or activities are constitutionally protected, or otherwise protected by Section 527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.

Janet, the problem I am seeing is when someone at the HOA thinks constructive criticism and considered opinion is defamatory.

For hoatalk.com's archives, in all states, it appears that "common interest privilege" exists as a category of "qualified privilege" or "conditional privilege.' The Restatement (Second) of Torts explains this as follows:

========
An occasion makes a publication conditionally privileged if the circumstances induce a correct or reasonable belief that

(a) there is information that affects a sufficiently important interest of the publisher, and

(b) the recipient's knowledge of the defamatory matter will be of service in the lawful protection of the interest.
...

An occasion makes a publication conditionally privileged if the circumstances induce a correct or reasonable belief that

(a) there is information that affects a sufficiently important public interest, and

(b) the public interest requires the communication of the defamatory matter to a public officer or a private citizen who is authorized or privileged to take action if the defamatory matter is true.

-- From the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 594 and 598 (1977). Though appearing in modern Tort reference books as well, e.g. _Hornbook on Torts_, Dobbs, Hayden and Bublick, 1916.
========

"Publication" means one person talks or writes about a second person in a communication to a third person (or a group of people).

A plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit may overcome a defense of qualified privilege only by showing "actual malice." "Actual malice" appears to translate to the defendant having acted in bad faith in communicating a falsehood. That is, the defendant did not believe the falsehood he published about the plaintiff and furthermore, the main goal of the defendant's publication was trying to injure the plaintiff (as opposed to serving a "sufficiently important interest" of the defendant or an important public interest).

"Public interest" appears to be defined in part as a matter affecting a 'substantial number' of people.