Updated Disclaimer

Documenting Ableism — Legal Disclaimer (Pennsylvania Specific)

Documenting Ableism is an advocacy, education, and documentation platform dedicated to identifying, recording, and challenging ableism, disability based harassment, and discrimination experienced by disabled individuals in public spaces and online environments.

Individuals who believe content on this page is factually inaccurate are encouraged to request correction through respectful, evidence based communication.

Speech addressing discrimination, civil rights, and matters of public concern receives heightened protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. I). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that speech on matters of public concern lies at the core of constitutional protection (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has similarly recognized that speech involving public issues and criticism of conduct is entitled to robust protection (McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd., 955 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2020); Mirza v. The New York Times Company, 880 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2018)).

Disabled individuals have the right to speak about discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment they experience. Content on this page may identify conduct and, where appropriate, individuals involved when statements are based on documented information, supported by evidence, or clearly presented as opinion grounded in disclosed facts.

Under Pennsylvania law, truth is an absolute defense to defamation. To establish defamation, a plaintiff must prove the elements set forth in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343, including that a statement of fact is false, published to a third party, and caused reputational harm.

In addition, when speech involves matters of public concern or public officials or public figures, the First Amendment requires proof of “actual malice.” This means a plaintiff must show that a statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). This is a high legal standard intended to protect open and robust debate on issues of public importance.

Pennsylvania courts and federal courts applying Pennsylvania law distinguish between actionable statements of fact and protected opinion. Statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts, or that clearly express opinion based on disclosed information, are protected under the First Amendment (Baker v. Lafayette College, 532 A.2d 399 (Pa. 1987); Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)).

Content shared on this page reflects lived experiences, documented interactions, and information drawn from publicly available sources. Material is shared in good faith for purposes of documentation, commentary, advocacy, and education.

This page is intended for lawful advocacy and documentation. It is not intended to harass, threaten, or retaliate against any individual or group. No private home addresses, phone numbers, or non public personal identifying information are published. Names, images, or references are included only when relevant to documenting conduct and when derived from publicly available or lawfully obtained sources.

Use of publicly available material for purposes such as commentary, reporting, teaching, or advocacy may fall within the scope of fair use under federal law (17 U.S.C. § 107), depending on the specific context and application.

Documenting discrimination and advocating for accountability are recognized forms of civic participation and protected expression when conducted in accordance with the law. Courts have further emphasized that even speech that is critical, offensive, or emotionally charged remains protected when addressing matters of public concern (Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)).

Works Cited (MLA)

Baker v. Lafayette College. 532 A.2d 399. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987.

McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd. 955 F.3d 352. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2020.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1. Supreme Court of the United States, 1990.

Mirza v. The New York Times Company. 880 F.3d 169. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2018.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254. Supreme Court of the United States, 1964.

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. Title 42, § 8343.

Snyder v. Phelps. 562 U.S. 443. Supreme Court of the United States, 2011.

United States Constitution. Amendment I.

United States Code. Title 17, § 107.