03/02/2020 AYYADURAI v. FLOOR64, INC | 270 F.Supp.3d 343... | 20170907d75| Leagle.com entire reputation on the false claim that he invented email)). Plainti contends that those statements are demonstrably [270 F.Supp.3d 364] false, as he has many other accomplishments on which his reputation is based. However, as with the claims that he has misrepresented copyright law or that his story has changed over time, those statements are protected as subjective statements that do not imply knowledge of undisclosed, objective facts. The statements at issue here are accompanied by full disclosures of the non-defamatory facts on which they rely. For example, in the September 3, 2014 post, Masnick included an image of plainti 's Twitter page, which says "Inventor of Email. Systems Scientist. Entrepreneur." directly under his name; states that his "entire Twitter stream is about him claiming to have invented email"; states that he has a website called "the inventor of email"; and provides an image of a book written by plainti called "The Email Revolution" that includes the phrase "The Inventor of Email" directly under his name. (Compl. Ex. H at 2). In light of those disclosed facts, no reasonable reader would believe that Masnick's statements were based on any other additional and undisclosed information. Furthermore, plainti has not challenged the accuracy of any of the information Masnick cites in support of his position. Accordingly, Masnick has "immunize[d] his statement from defamation liability by fully disclosing the non-defamatory facts on which his opinion is based," Piccone, 785 F.3d at 771, thus "making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions." Riley, 292 F.3d at 289. f.  Statements About Plaintiff's Accusations of Racism A few of the allegedly defamatory statements challenge plainti 's position that those who disagree with him are "racist." (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 41(f) (stating that plainti has "sp[un] this bizarre and totally made up story of a big American defense contract wanting to rewrite history to write out someone with `brown skin'"), ¶ 46(c) ("Ayyadurai is particularly annoying because of his bogus claim of racism.")). Once again, these statements are protected because they are statements of opinion that do not imply knowledge of objective facts. The March 8, 2016 article provided the non-defamatory information on which Masnick clearly relied in reaching his conclusion that plainti 's "story" is "bizarre and totally made up." (Compl. Ex. N at 2). For example, the article included a lengthy excerpt from plainti 's Twitter feed, including tweets challenging journalists who, following his death, credited Ray Tomlinson (a former Raytheon employee) with creating e-mail and a tweet stating that "[w]hite journalists since 2012 have joined in the lynching and whitewashing of facts on email." (Id. at 2-11). It also included a link to plainti 's response to those journalists, which he posted on his own website, explaining his position: I have no doubt that my origin and ethnicity have strongly in uenced [the] controversy over my invention of email. This has also in uenced the withholding of recognition for that invention, and for personal and racist attacks directed against me. Such attacks have been facilitated by Raytheon, (Tomlinson's employer), one of the largest military contractors, which pro ts from spending millions, as we are seeing right now, to deliberately rewrite history as it serves to enhance their brand in the lucrative cyber-security market. (Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Correction: The Inventor of Email is Still Alive, VA Shiva (June 30, 2016), http://vashiva.com/correction-the-inventor-ofemail-is-still-alive/). [270 F.Supp.3d 365] Finally, the article also included links to information about work performed by Tomlinson in the area of electronic messaging. By providing all of that information, Masnick made clear that he is drawing his own, subjective conclusion, and he enabled his readers to draw their own conclusions from the information provided. Furthermore, no reasonable reader would conclude that his statements about plainti 's claims of racism were based on any nondisclosed, objective information. Accordingly, the statements are protected. g.  Statements of Motivation, Intent, or Purpose The complaint also identi es a number of statements concerning plainti 's state of mind or his motivations. For example, one article states that plainti is "deliberately misrepresent[ing]" the RAND report. (Compl. ¶ 36(f)). Another states that he is "obsessed with his false claim of creating email." (Id. ¶ 44(b)). Such statements are not capable of being proved false and are also subjective statements that do not imply knowledge of objective facts. A number of courts have recognized that a person's motivations "can never be known for sure," even by that person. Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 1227 (7th Cir. 1993); accord Greenspan v. Random House, Inc., 859 F.Supp.2d 206, 224 (D. Mass. 2012) (concluding that statement about a person's motivations for ling a lawsuit "cannot objectively be proven as true or false"); Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142, 1147 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that statements concerning a person's motivations for committing suicide were not objectively veri able); Murray v. Hu ngtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.Supp.3d 879, 886 (S.D. Ohio 2014) ("[T]here are no objective tests to determine [a person's] internal motivation."). Haynes, for example, considered statements in a book that implied that a man left his wife for another woman for nancial reasons. See 8 F.3d at 1226. In holding that the statements were not actionable, the Seventh Circuit observed that the man's "motivations for leaving Ruby for Dorothy ... can never be known for sure (even by [him]) and anyone is entitled to speculate on a person's motives from the known facts of his behavior." Id. at 1227. Accordingly, statements concerning a person's motivation or intent are not actionable because they are incapable of being proved true or false. Similarly, such statements are subjective speculation that does not imply possession of objectively veri able facts. See id.; Gacek, 666 F.3d at 1147-48 (holding that statements concerning a person's motivations for committing suicide express only a "`theory' or `surmise'" and noting that "anyone is entitled to speculate on a person's motives from the known facts of his behavior"). In Haynes, addressing the statements implying that a man left his wife for nancial reasons, the court observed: "Luther Haynes left a poor woman for a less poor one, and Lemann drew a natural though not inevitable inference. He did not pretend to have the inside dope. He ... claim[ed] insight, not information that the plainti might be able to prove false in a trial." 8 F.3d at 1227. The same is true here. No reasonable person would read the statement "[Dr. Ayyadurai and his friends] are relying on the ignorance of reporters and the public about what a copyright is" to suggest that Masnick possesses undisclosed, inside information about plainti 's motives. See Greenspan, 859 F.Supp.2d at 224. Rather, the statements are clearly subjective interpretations or theories drawn from disclosed facts and, as such, are protected. [270 F.Supp.3d 366] h.  The Context of the Posts https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170907d75 8/15