How many of you have ever felt personally defamed by Regina George? A variation of this question was asked by Ms. Norbury, played by the wonderful Tina Fey, in the 2004 cinematic masterpiece “Mean Girls.” While Ms. Norbury’s actual question focused on the victims of high school bullying and toxicity, the catalyst for this pivotal scene was the one and only Burn Book, a scrapbook of insults about classmates. The Burn Book was created and contributed to by Regina George and the other “Plastics,” aka the mean girls (that’s the title of the movie!), and eventually copied and plastered around the school.
It has been over 17 years since “Mean Girls” premiered, but no passage of time can dim its light. And since 2021 was a year that seemed to last five years, just like the decade-long 2020 before it, I thought we could use a little light. What better way to start the new year than with an examination of the Burn Book’s legal implications? (I’m not a regular lawyer. I’m a cool lawyer.) Thus, I have considered whether the subjects of the Burn Book would have viable claims for defamation against the Plastics.
Defamation laws vary from state to state, and although Mean Girls was set in Illinois, I am not. Therefore, I will instead explain in broad terms how the allegedly defamatory statements would be treated in most courts, with a slight focus on New York courts. I cannot guarantee that some courts might decide differently for a few of these Burn Book entries. For the purposes of this exercise, we can assume that no one has been financially damaged by the statements in the Burn Book, and I am setting aside any issues regarding the authorship and distribution of those statements.
A quick disclaimer: I have copied the below statements verbatim from still images of the Burn Book, conveniently compiled at meangirls.fandom.com/wiki/Burn_Book. If I missed any, it was not for lack of due diligence.
‘Trang Pak is a grotsky little byotch.’
Analysis: I had to look up the term “grotsky” to confirm that it is not a real word. Urban Dictionary defines it as “a person or thing that lacks the cognitive capacity for rational thought.”
In general, a statement — whether spoken or written — is defamatory if it is a false statement purporting to be fact, rather than an opinion; the statement was published or communicated to a third party; it was communicated with fault amounting to at least negligence; and communication of the statement caused harm to the plaintiff. Since “grotsky” is not a real word, it does not purport to be fact, nor is it a definable term. Thus, it is not defamatory.
The terms “byotch” is a variation of the term “bitch” which, under New York law, is an imprecise term amounting to name-calling. Although it may be considered vulgar, it is considered an opinion statement and therefore not defamatory.
Conclusion: Trang Pak does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Ms. Norbury is a Pusher, A SAD OLD DRUG PUSHER.’
Analysis: This statement would fall under the category of defamatory per se, a type of defamation that does not require that the plaintiff be damaged in any way because of the severity of the statement. In New York, defamatory per se statements include those that accuse the plaintiff of a serious crime; injure the plaintiff’s trade, business, or profession; impute a loathsome disease on the plaintiff; or impute unchastity on a woman. Most other states have elements similar to these that a plaintiff must meet in order to successfully plead defamation per se.
Courts look at the reasonable meaning of the language, and I believe most courts would determine that by calling Ms. Norbury a “drug pusher,” this Burn Book entry accuses Ms. Norbury of providing and/or selling illicit drugs to students. There are few other meanings for the phrase “drug pusher.” Therefore, this statement (1) accuses Ms. Norbury of a serious crime, and (2) would likely injure Ms. Norbury’s career.
Conclusion: Ms. Norbury has a viable claim for defamation per se. You go, Ms. Norbury!
‘Trang Pak made out with Coach Carr. (Still true)’
Analysis: This statement concerns two people, so I will consider their claims separately.
Coach Carr: If it were false, this statement would be defamatory for Coach Carr. The allegation here is that Coach Carr, an adult faculty member, engaged in intimate acts with a presumably under-aged student. State laws differ with regards to what type of sexual contact constitutes criminal behavior, but since “made out with” suggests contact more intimate than a mere kiss, and Carr was in a position of authority over Pak, a student, the statement would likely be considered an accusation of a serious crime (and would likely injure his profession). Therefore, it would be considered defamation per se.
Trang Pak: If Trang Pak tried to sue for defamation, she would not be successful. She has not suffered damages as a result of the statement. A defamation per se claim would also be unsuccessful. Although on its face, one would assume the statement imputes unchastity to Pak, the statement alleges that she — an under-aged student — made out with an adult authority figure. Courts have historically found that unchastity may be imputed from statements alleging prostitution, promiscuity, or voluntary sexual behavior, but that unchastity cannot be imputed to a woman as a result of having been the victim of nonconsensual intimate acts.
However, as we saw later in the movie, Trang Pak did indeed make out with Coach Carr, and therefore this Burn Book entry is not defamatory because it is true, and the first rule of defamation law is truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
Conclusion: Coach Carr and Trang Pak do not have viable claims for defamation.
‘Muckleroy takes medication for the boil on his back… side’
Analysis: Without damages, Muckleroy would have to sufficiently plead that this statement implied a loathsome disease, generally something that is “contagious” or “attributed in any way to socially repugnant conduct,” so as to satisfy the standard for defamation per se claims. Courts look at whether the alleged “loathsome disease” one has been accused of having is chronic, incurable, or “arouses some intense disgust in society.” This Burn Book entry is unfortunately not specific enough to constitute a definitive disease, let alone a “loathsome” one.
Conclusion: Muckleroy does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘[Name off camera, but ending with “gson”] Didn’t shower for a month .. during SUMMER, and to this day still hasn’t washed her hair.’
Analysis: This person, who has been accused of bad hygiene, would indeed have a claim for defamation if they could prove damages. The statement here is a factual one, rather than opinion. However, in this exercise we are not assuming damages. On its own, this statement does not constitute defamation per se.
Conclusion: This person (full name unknown) does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Dawn Schweitzer is a fat virgin, has a huge ass.. (still half true)’
Analysis: In the eyes of the law, calling someone fat or stating that they have a “huge ass” does not constitute defamation because it is an opinion statement. Schweitzer has also been referred to as a virgin, which is the opposite of unchastity. Therefore, the statement wouldn’t fall under defamation per se.
Conclusion: Dawn Schweitzer does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Amber D’Alessio made out with a hot dog.’
Analysis: While it is a strange act to be accused of, this statement does not fulfill the necessary elements of a defamation claim, nor does it meet the standard for defamation per se claim.
Conclusion: Amber D’Alessio does not have a claim for defamation.
*It should be noted that this particular Burn Book entry had to be changed in order to appease the Motion Picture Association of America, in order to avoid an R rating. The original entry would have given D’Alessio a strong claim for defamation per se.
‘Damian Leigh, too gay to function.’
Analysis: As stated above, truth is a defense to claims of defamation. Thus, assuming Damian Leigh was gay — which the film heavily suggests if not explicitly states — the speech is protected as truth. The idea that he was too gay to function would be considered “rhetorical hyperbole,” a First Amendment-based doctrine that protects speech that is exaggerated, wild, or over-the-top.
As to the issue of whether Damian Leigh could sue for defamation if the burn book had called him “gay” and he was not gay, the law on this has actually changed recently. Throughout the history of defamation law, falsely claiming someone was gay would have been considered defamation per se, in light of criminal laws against gay sex and widespread discrimination. Courts started to waver on this issue starting in the 1990s and began looking at the way the accusation was phrased, to whom it was stated, and the intent behind it. Although not all states are aligned on this issue, the New York Appellate Division decided just one year ago that “a false imputation of homosexuality does not constitute defamation per se,” noting that “it cannot be said that current public opinion supports a rule that would equate statements imputing homosexuality with accusations of serious criminal conduct or insinuations that an individual has a loathsome disease.”
Conclusion: Regardless of whether Damian Leigh was or was not gay, he would not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Janis Ian – [The Burn Book used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person next to Janis Ian’s name. I will not be repeating the word.]’
Analysis: While I won’t be repeating the slur, I can explain that slurs are generally considered not to be defamatory, as they are considered opinion-insults. Statements of pure insult, such as “loser,” “jerk,” or “dweeb,” are opinion statements. This applies to offensive terms and insults, such as the word “byotch” as discussed above and slurs like the one Janis Ian was labeled.
With regard to whether Janis Ian could claim that the term was defamatory because she was not gay, such an argument would also fail for the reasons explained in Damian Leigh’s analysis. It is not defamatory (in New York and many other states at least) to call someone gay when they are not gay.
Conclusion: Janis Ian does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Bethany Byrd has an amazing ability to suppress her gag reflex. Uses Super Jumbo Tampons… slut.’
Analysis: The first part of this statement, the claim that Bethany Byrd has an amazing ability to suppress her gag reflex, could be found to be defamatory. However, Byrd would need to plead defamation by implication, meaning the statement did not directly state a falsehood but implied it. Courts view it differently depending on jurisdiction, but in New York, courts consider whether the language of the communication as a whole can be reasonably read both to impart a defamatory inference and to affirmatively suggest that the author intended or endorsed that inference. Here, the statement can be read to allege acts of oral sex, thereby imputing unchastity on Byrd. She would have to rigorously show the court that the statement can be reasonably read to impart such an inference and that the Plastics intended that inference.
As for the claim about “super jumbo tampons,” it would not be considered defamatory because Byrd hasn’t suffered damages, and it would be difficult to prove that it implies promiscuity aka unchastity, such that a defamation per se claim would be possible. Plus, she eventually stated the infamous line “I can’t help it if I have a heavy flow and wide-set vagina” in relation to the tampon-related statement, verifying the truth of that statement. Thus, not defamatory.
While “slut” is a term that suggests promiscuity and theoretically should be considered defamation per se, a court could easily determine that the term “slut” is an opinion statement that a reader would know does not purport to be fact. Much like slurs and other offensive language discussed above, “slut” would likely be considered an opinion-insult.
Conclusion: Bethany has a very slim chance of success on her defamation claim, depending on whether a judge would reach the same inference regarding the “gag reflex” statement.
‘Kaitlyn Warrens is a fat whore.’
Analysis: Calling someone “fat” is an opinion statement and thus not defamatory. Whore, much like “slut” is likely to be considered an opinion-insult and thus without more language imputing promiscuity on Kaitlyn Warrens, a court would not view it as defamatory.
Conclusion: Kaitlyn Warrens does not have a viable claim for defamation.
‘Regina George: This girl is the nastiest skank bitch I’ve ever met. Do not trust her. She is a fugly slut.’
Analysis: We know Regina George added this entry to the Burn Book herself, and for that reason alone it is not defamatory. Let’s assume someone else authored and communicated this statement. “Nastiest skank bitch” is an opinion statement. The terms “fugly” and “slut” are similarly opinion statements. And while the phrase “Do not trust her” seems like a more factual statement, it does not purport to be a fact about Regina George, but instead communicates that the speaker/author finds her untrustworthy. Just like calling someone a liar, a snake, or a cheat is opinion, calling someone untrustworthy is an opinion statement as well.
Conclusion: Regina George does not have a viable claim for defamation.
As you see, the vast majority of these statements would not be considered defamatory by most courts. This is not my way of telling you to stop trying to make defamation happen, it’s not gonna happen. There are countless cases that have sided with plaintiffs and determined the complained-of statements were defamatory. Unfortunately for the students of fictional North Shore High School, what the Plastics wrote in the Burn Book was all very mean, but simply fell short of defamatory.
Diana Warshow is Senior Counsel at Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP in New York, NY. Practicing law since 2008, Diana’s work focuses on defamation and Title IX law. She represents clients in libel and slander claims against media companies, written publications, tech companies, blogs, and social media sites. She also represents students in disciplinary proceedings at high schools, colleges, and post-graduate institutions around the country. You can reach her by email at DianaWarshowEsq@gmail.com and connect with her on LinkedIn.
