A local activist has won her defamation case against a local woman who alleged in comments made on Facebook that that she had a criminal history.

That activist is now being sued by two other people who claim that she defamed them online and in a public meeting.

Sherrie Mitchell sued Ashley Dersch in November, saying Dersch defamed her when she posted comments on a zoning story on the Brown County Democrat’s Facebook page.

The story was about a zoning decision for the Buccos family’s land, which Mitchell, a neighbor, was challenging. Mitchell was arguing that the logging trucks which travel her road because of this business pose a danger to the neighborhood because she had met one on the road and it caused her to swerve off to avoid being hit, she said. The log truck driver, Christopher Buccos, denied that that’s what happened.

“For Sherrie to be all about the law she sure knows a thing or two about breaking it! Drugs,Speeding,Drinking and driving etc. (Go to https://public.court.in.gov/mycase),” Dersch’s comment read. “How do we not know that she was speeding or drunk when she meet the log truck!”

The MyCase system contained arrest and citation records for Sherrie Mitchell, but not this Sherrie Mitchell. The Sherrie Mitchells who had speeding and drunken driving charges are Black women living in northern Indiana; this Sherrie Mitchell is white and lives in Brown County. Those kinds of details about defendants can be seen by clicking links in the records, which Dersch testified in court on Feb. 11 that she did not know she could do.

There were no Sherrie Mitchells in the MyCase system who were charged with drug crimes, though Dersch testified that she considered alcohol to be a drug.

Mitchell acted as her own attorney; Dersch’s was Jennifer Jones Auger, who was hired by the Buccos family. Dersch testified that she’s been in a relationship with Christopher Buccos for five years. She said she’d gone on MyCase to look up Mitchell’s past after hearing rumors about her and decided to post the link so that other people could look things up for themselves.

Auger argued that Dersch’s comment didn’t necessarily mean she was accusing Mitchell of breaking a law. Under questioning, Mitchell said that her husband of 20 years had been convicted of drunken driving in 2012, so, Auger said, Mitchell could “know a thing or two” about breaking laws through her husband’s experience.

Mitchell argued that Dersch definitely implied that she had broken the law, and the second part of her comment, “How do we not know that she was speeding or drunk,” implied that those were facts.

Mitchell said that she considers herself to be a public figure in Brown County because of her “activism” work, her frequent attendance and participation in local government meetings, and her leadership of the Facebook page Brown County Refreshed.

“I expect people to be angry about the things I do in this county. I get that,” Mitchell said. “But calling me a criminal will not stand.”

There are two different legal standards for defamation depending on whether the person being defamed is a public figure or a regular person. The burden of proof for defamation against a public figure is higher, requiring the attorney to not only prove that the statement was published, was false and caused the person material harm, but also to prove that the person making the false statement acted with “actual malice” — knowing that it was false and saying it anyway, or having reckless disregard for whether or not it was false — instead of just negligence.

Publishers of information, such as newspapers, are generally not liable for comments made on their platforms by third parties, such as readers.

On March 18, Brown County Magistrate Frank Nardi found in Mitchell’s favor.

Regarding whether or not Dersch showed malice, Nardi decided that she did. “The defendant (Dersch) knew that there were no offenses involving drugs or any other crimes contained in the information on MyCase, which she included in her post on Facebook. She would therefore have known that any such statement imputing that the plaintiff (Mitchell) had broken the law in regard to ‘drugs’ and ‘etc.’ were false when she published it because she had no information upon which to base the allegations. … This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the defendant did not retract her statements after another individual posted shortly after the defendant’s post that the plaintiff was not the defendant in either of the cases identified on MyCase,” his decision read.

Nardi awarded Mitchell $97. The $97 was the cost of court fees; he saw no evidence that Mitchell had suffered recoverable damages because of the statement Dersch had made.

Mitchell had sought $6,000 from Dersch — $97 in court fees and $5,903 in damages. She came up with that figure because $6,000 was awarded in a 2018 defamation case which went to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In that case, a woman had alleged in a Facebook comment that her former boyfriend’s mother had something to do with her truck being stolen when that wasn’t actually true.

According to The Indiana Lawyer, the Indiana Court of Appeals case awarding damages based on a person’s false social media comment was the first judgment of its kind in the nation and “marks an extension to social media users of libel and defamation liability standards that apply to traditional media.”

“You can’t just say anything you want on Facebook and get personal and make statements about other people that aren’t true without running the possibility of getting sued,” The Indiana Lawyer quoted attorney James C. Spencer as saying.

“A lay person probably feels they have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want to, but that’s definitely not the case if you’re harming people with what you’re saying.”

As Mitchell was gathering her things to leave court on Feb. 11, Auger served Mitchell with two defamation cases against her, both from members of the Buccos family.

Christopher Buccos is alleging that Mitchell “spoke and published” defamatory comments about him on or about Jan. 29, 2021, at a Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He is seeking $8,000 in damages. The court summons did not say what the comments were.

Christine Buccos, Chris’ mother, is alleging that Mitchell published defamatory comments about her on or about Feb. 5, 2021, on the Brown County Democrat’s Facebook page. She is seeking $8,000 in damages. The allegedly defamatory statement was not included in the initial court paperwork, so it is unclear what prompted this filing.

Mitchell filed a motion for summary judgment on March 11 because she didn’t have enough information on what the complaints are to be able to mount a defense to either one of them.

Those cases have been tentatively set for hearings on June 10.