Lying inmates looking for love have a high burden of proof when suing newspapers that write about them, court rules

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today threw out a lawsuit against the Herald and Michele McPhee by an inmate who placed an online dating ad even though their story falsely accused him of manslaughter and "brutal sexual attack on an elderly woman."

In its ruling, the court said Edmond R. LaChance Jr. did not exactly cover himself in glory by omitting from his "Inmate Connection" ad that he was in maximum security for rape and aggravated rape. The court ruled that McPhee's 2005 articles on the dangers of hooking up with inmates online were based on state records which turned out to be incorrect, not because of any "actual malice" on McPhee's part.

The "malice" doctrine normally only applies to public figures - who have to prove a printed statement is not only false but published with the intent to damage the figure. The court agreed LaChance was not a public figure, but said he basically made himself one by injecting himself into an issue of public concern, in this case, the concern about the dangers of connecting with violent felons through online ads.

Here, the plaintiff, of his own volition, placed a personal advertisement on the Web site "Inmate Connections," which included a picture of himself taken in prison. He actively sought the attention of those visiting the site by indicating that he was seeking friendship, romance, legal help, and monetary donations. The plaintiff managed successfully to post his advertisement despite the fact that prison regulations prohibit maximum security prisoners, such as him, from having access to the Internet.

Furthermore, the plaintiff was highlighted in the articles because his advertisement was particularly misleading and controversial. Although he did admit that he was incarcerated, the plaintiff did not disclose the nature of his convictions. This is especially deceptive in light of his assertion in the advertisement that "I'm not a bad man and I treat everyone the way I wish to be treated." Also, despite the plaintiff's noting in his advertisement that he was a person who "keep[s] it real," it appears that he deliberately misstated his birth and release dates. In these circumstances, we determine that we are presented with a situation where the plaintiff has "voluntarily inject[ed] himself ... into a particular public controversy." ... We conclude that the plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure, and is therefore required to clearly and convincingly prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendants.

• Complete ruling