changed and updated with information related to the original defamatory statements, and thus republished. For example, the last paragraph of his website now begins “Three months later, Deer’s personal journey found closure when in April 2011 he was named specialist journalist of the year in the British newspaper industry’s annual Pulitzer-style Press Awards.” This was for his ‘work’ regarding Dr. Wakefield and his ‘investigation.’106 Three paragraphs earlier in the article, he recounts events in January 2011, and the conclusion of his investigation in the BMJ. Additionally, Defendant Deer has re-published his website by adding several links and new information regarding Dr. Wakefield, including a link to see an interview given by Deer regarding Dr. Wakefield on March 14, 2011. These additions and edits to Deer’s website contain new information about Dr. Wakefield and are designed to gain new readers; thus, these additions and edits constitute republications of the original defamatory statements, with the latest republication being in April 2011. Because Dr. Wakefield filed suit within one year of the last republication of Deer’s website, Dr. Wakefield’s claims are timely as a matter of law. B.
ELEMENT 3: The Relevant Statements Are Defamatory.
As to element (3), the relevant statements are defamatory as a matter of law because they qualify as “defamatory per se.” Defamation per se is spoken, written, or printed words that are so obviously hurtful to the person aggrieved that they require no proof of their injurious character to make them actionable.107 In Texas, a statement is defamatory per se if it is injurious to a plaintiff’s reputation in his business or profession.108 Here, because the relevant statements attack Plaintiff’s reputation in his profession, such statements are defamatory as a matter of law.
106
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 50 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). 108 Texas Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc. v. Waste Mgt. Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563, 581 (Tex.App.—Austin 2007, pet denied). 107
30