WILDER, J.

Appellant, Joseph Munem, appeals by leave granted from the circuit court's order denying his motion for a protective order barring discovery. Plaintiff seeks to depose Munem to discover the identities of persons who allegedly made defamatory statements about him on an Internet message board. Munem seeks to keep the identities of those people anonymous. We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of defendants.

I

Plaintiff is the deputy superintendent of the department of public works for the city of Warren. He filed a complaint alleging a single count of defamation per se against several unknown "John Doe" defendants. According to the complaint, defendants posted false and malicious statements about plaintiff on an Internet message board called The Warren Forum. Defendants posted these statements anonymously under fictitious user names. Plaintiff's complaint did not provide the specific text of those statements but alleged that they "prejudiced and caused harm to the Plaintiff in his reputation and office and held Plaintiff up to disgrace, ridicule, and contempt." Plaintiff alleged that the statements were false, not privileged, and "were made with the knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for their falsity." Plaintiff maintains that the anonymous statements accused him of being involved in the disappearance and theft of approximately 3.647 tons of road salt from city storage facilities and of stealing tires from city garbage trucks and selling them. Plaintiff finally presented a verbatim text of the alleged defamatory statements in his response to Munem's motion for a protective order. The statements at issue were posted to The Warren Forum message board in January and February 2012 by people using the pseudonyms "northend," "yogi," "hatersrlosers," and "pstigerfan."

The first set of statements at issue concerned reports that 3,647 tons of rock salt was missing from the city's storage dome and that nobody could account for how it had disappeared. The local news media reported on the missing road salt after an audit revealed a discrepancy between the city's inventory and records.1 The statements were replies posted to a topic thread titled, "Where did our road salt go?" Northend commented as follows2 on the road salt thread:

Yogi commented on the road salt thread that "the pizza box maker sold it! him an Gus probably split the money."

The second set of statements at issue were replies to an initial posting titled "MORE sanitation trucks? Yep," which concerned the city's decision to buy additional new garbage trucks. The city's decision to buy additional new garbage trucks was controversial and reported in the local news media because it came after the city had denied other city departments' requests for new equipment. Haterslosers commented that the city was "only getting more garbage trucks because Gus needs more tires to sell to get more money for his pockets: P"4 And pstigerfan stated, in relevant part, as follows:

Plaintiff filed a petition for an ex parte order to depose Munem, a former city employee, to determine the identity of the anonymous John Does who left the allegedly defamatory statements on The Warren Forum. In light of past conversations with Munem, plaintiff believed that Munem was affiliated with the website. The circuit court granted plaintiff's petition and issued an order permitting plaintiff to depose Munem "for the purpose of identifying ownership of the Warren Forum and bloggers on the Warren Forum website who have made entries relating to Plaintiff, Gus Ghanam."

Munem then moved for a protective order against his deposition, arguing that the First Amendment protects a critic's right to anonymously comment about the actions of a public official and that the identities of the anonymous writers were subject to a qualified privilege. Munem argued that before plaintiff could seek to compel the identification of the anonymous posters, he must produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of a cause of action for defamation against a public figure. The circuit court did not consider or acknowledge the First Amendment aspects involved and, instead, merely relied on the open and liberal discovery rules of Michigan. The trial court provided the following explanation from the bench:

II

Munem raises three main arguments on appeal. First, he argues that Michigan courts must require some showing of merit to the defamation action before the court will allow a plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding the identity of an anonymous critic. Munem urges this Court to adopt the standards articulated in Dendrite Int'l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (App.Div., 2001). Second, Munem argues that since plaintiff made no showing that complied with Dendrite, he should be barred from using discovery methods to obtain the identity of the anonymous defendants. Third, Munem argues that the statements at issue that were posted on The Warren Forum are nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole that cannot provide the basis for a defamation action.

We agree with Munem that the use of the discovery process by public officials seeking to identify anonymous Internet critics raises First Amendment concerns about the use of defamation actions to identify current critics and discourage others from exercising their rights to free speech. In Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Doe 1, 300 Mich.App. 245, 266-267, 833 N.W.2d 331 (2013), another panel of this Court held that the Michigan rules of civil procedure adequately protect a defendant's interests in anonymous speech when that defendant is aware of and involved in a pending defamation lawsuit. The Cooley Court declined, however, to address what it described as the extreme case — one in which the plaintiff in a defamation case sues an anonymous defendant solely to subpoena the defendant's Internet provider for identifying information in order to retaliate against the defendant in some fashion outside the court action. Id. at 269-271, 833 N.W.2d 331. While acknowledging that Dendrite and Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 457 (Del, 2005), offer protection to anonymous defendants in this category that the Michigan rules of civil procedure do not, the Cooley Court declined to adopt the Dendrite standard or any other similar standard because it was not necessary under the facts of that case. See Cooley, 300 Mich.App. at 270, 833 N.W.2d 331 (declining to extend its holding "beyond the facts" that were before the Court, which included the facts that the anonymous defendant knew "relatively early on" that there was a pending defamation law suit and that, through his actions, he had been successful in preventing a public disclosure of his name).

In the instant case, however, there is no evidence that any of the anonymous defendants were aware of the pending matter or involved in any aspect of the legal proceedings. Therefore, the instant case is distinguishable from Cooley, and while its analysis is applicable here, Cooley's holding is not controlling of the outcome in this case. We hold that when a plaintiff seeks disclosure of the identity of an anonymous defendant who might not be aware of the pending defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff is first required to make reasonable efforts to notify the defendant of the lawsuit, and, in addition, the trial court is required to analyze the complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) to ensure that the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief can be granted. Applying these requirements to the facts in the instant case, we reverse the trial court's ruling denying Munem's request for a protective order and further hold that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the statements at issue were not defamatory.

A

A trial court's decision on whether to compel discovery is ordinarily reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Cabrera v. Ekema, 265 Mich.App. 402, 406, 695 N.W.2d 78 (2005). However, because of the importance of protecting the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment, in cases in which public officials or public figures sue for defamation, courts must conduct an independent review of the record and "analyze the alleged defamatory statements at issue and their surrounding circumstances to determine whether those statements are protected under the First Amendment." Smith, 487 Mich. at 111-112, 793 N.W.2d 533.

The First Amendment provides strong protections to those who use their freedom of speech to criticize public officials over public issues. "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern." Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). The United States Supreme Court explained:

Given the need to protect uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate, the law recognizes that freedom of expression requires "breathing space," which "is provided by a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability." Id. at 52, 108 S.Ct. 876. And the requisite level of culpability a plaintiff who is a public official must prove is that the false statements were made "with actual malice." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Smith, 487 Mich. at 114-115, 793 N.W.2d 533. "Actual malice" does not require a showing of ill will, but instead "exists when the defendant knowingly makes a false statement or makes a false statement in reckless disregard of the truth." Smith, 487 Mich. at 114, 793 N.W.2d 533, citing New York Times, 376 U.S. at 280, 84 S.Ct. 710. Similarly, reckless disregard does not mean that the speaker merely failed to act with reasonably prudent conduct, but instead requires "sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion that the defendant made the allegedly defamatory publication with a `high degree of awareness' of the publication's probable falsity, or that the defendant `entertained serious doubts as to the truth' of the publication made." Smith, 487 Mich. at 116, 793 N.W.2d 533 (citations omitted). This requirement is codified in Michigan by MCL 600.2911(6):

Without the actual malice requirement, "would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so." New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279, 84 S.Ct. 710. Whether the statements are defamatory and whether the evidence presented is sufficient to show actual malice on the part of the defendant present questions of law to be decided by the courts. Smith, 487 Mich. at 111, 793 N.W.2d 533. When a plaintiff who is a public official cannot show actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant is entitled to summary disposition of the defamation claim. Ireland v. Edwards, 230 Mich.App. 607, 622-624, 584 N.W.2d 632 (1998).

Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a writer's First Amendment right to freedom of speech includes the right to publish and distribute writings while remaining anonymous. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334, 342, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4 L.Ed.2d 559 (1960).

Because of the interest in protecting freedom of expression, "there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified." Talley, 362 U.S. at 65, 80 S.Ct. 536. This right to speak anonymously applies to those expressing views on the Internet. SaleHoo Group, Ltd. v. ABC Co., 722 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1213 (W.D.Wash., 2010). "`Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas,' and individuals `who have committed no wrongdoing should be free to participate in online forums without fear that their identity will be exposed under the authority of the court.'" Id. at 1213-1214, quoting Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1092 (W.D.Wash., 2001). However, the right to anonymous speech is not absolute; the First Amendment protects the right to speak rather than the right to remain anonymous or to avoid the consequences of one's statements. Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, ___, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2831 n. 4, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring in part). The right to anonymous expression over the Internet does not extend to defamatory speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment. SaleHoo Group, 722 F.Supp.2d at 1214.

B

In order to balance these competing interests, there is an entire spectrum of "standards" that courts have used when they are faced with a plaintiff who is a public figure seeking to identify an anonymous defendant who has posted allegedly defamatory material regarding the plaintiff. These standards, ranging from least stringent to most stringent, include a good-faith basis to assert a claim, pleading sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, showing of prima facie evidence sufficient to withstand a motion for summary disposition, and "hurdles even more stringent." Cahill, 884 A.2d at 457.

Munem urges this Court to adopt the approach from Dendrite, in which the court required, inter alia, that a plaintiff show evidence sufficient to withstand "summary judgment" before forcing the identification of anonymous posters. In Dendrite, the plaintiff sued anonymous defendants for postings on an Internet message board. The plaintiff sought to compel the Internet service provider (ISP) to disclose the defendants' identities, and the defendants moved to bar the discovery. The court noted that it needed a procedure to ensure that plaintiffs "do not use discovery procedures to ascertain the identities of unknown defendants in order to harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet." Dendrite, 342 N.J.Super. at 156, 775 A.2d 756.

The Dendrite court held that a plaintiff seeking the identity of an anonymous Internet critic in a defamation action must meet four requirements. First, the plaintiff must undertake efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena or other legal proceedings to reveal their identities and give them a reasonable opportunity to respond. "These notification efforts should include posting a message of notification of the identity discovery request to the anonymous user on the ISP's pertinent message board." Id. at 141, 775 A.2d 756. Second, the plaintiff must identify the exact statements made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff alleges constitute defamation. Id. Third, the plaintiff's complaint must set forth a prima facie cause of action, i.e., the complaint must be able to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Fourth, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action on a prima facie basis before the court may order disclosure of the identity of the unknown defendant. Id. Once the plaintiff has met these requirements, then "the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to properly proceed." Id. at 142, 775 A.2d 756.

The Delaware Supreme Court in Cahill, 884 A.2d at 457, addressed this same issue. Consistently with Dendrite, Cahill rejected the idea that a plaintiff must merely allege a good-faith cause of action for defamation before seeking to identify an unknown defendant. The Cahill court explained that such a standard is too lenient because "even silly or trivial libel claims can easily survive" this threshold test. Id. at 459. Instead, the Cahill court adopted a modified version of the Dendrite test, under which a "summary judgment" standard is the appropriate standard to use.

The Cahill court adopted Dendrite's notice provision, holding that "to the extent reasonably practicable under the circumstances, the plaintiff must undertake efforts to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of a subpoena or application for order of disclosure." Id. at 460. Furthermore, if the case arises from anonymous statements on the Internet, the plaintiff must post a message notifying the anonymous defendant of the plaintiff's discovery request on the same ISP message board where the statements appeared. Id. at 461. The Cahill court explained:

But the Cahill court determined that Dendrite's requirement that a plaintiff provide the exact defamatory statements was subsumed in its summary-judgment standard and, therefore, unnecessary. Id. Additionally, it found that the balancing requirement was also unnecessary because "[t]he summary judgment test is itself the balance." Id.

Cahill further found that a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to satisfy a summary-judgment standard, showing genuine issues of material fact, before obtaining the identity of an anonymous informant. Id. at 457, 462-463. However, Cahill rejected the idea that a plaintiff should be required to produce evidence of all elements of a defamation claim as required by Dendrite. Cahill noted that while a public figure ultimately must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice in order to prevail on his or her claim, presenting evidence showing that element would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible, without knowing the true identity of the defendant. Id. at 464. Accordingly, Cahill held that a plaintiff who is a public figure must only plead and prove facts with regard to elements of the claim that are within his or her control, leaving proof of actual malice until after the defendant is identified and further discovery conducted. Id. at 463-464. The Cahill court reasoned:

Courts from other jurisdictions that have addressed these issues have mainly followed Dendrite,6 Cahill,7 or a modified version of those standards.8 But in Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., 402 Ill.App.3d 704, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666 (2010), the Illinois Court of Appeals rejected both the Dendrite and Cahill tests for public-official plaintiffs seeking the identities of anonymous Internet critics who allegedly defamed them. While noting that certain types of anonymous speech are constitutionally protected, id. at 712, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666, the court found no need to apply the tests of Dendrite or Cahill because the applicable Illinois court rule required that the petition for discovery of anonymous defendants be verified and state with particularity facts that would establish a cause of action for defamation, id. at 714-715, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666. Notably, the court concluded that its court rules effectively required the plaintiff to allege and swear to specific facts stating a prima facie case for defamation. Id. at 715, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666. Thus, even Maxon, while expressly rejecting Dendrite and Cahill, nonetheless de facto approved the same summary-judgment standard.

As previously noted, this Court in Cooley declined to adopt any additional standards and held, similarly to the Illinois court, that Michigan's rules of civil procedure adequately protect an anonymous defendant in a defamation case. The Cooley Court concluded that the procedures found in MCR 2.302(C) regarding protective orders coupled with the procedures for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) adequately protect a defendant's First Amendment interests in anonymity. Cooley, 300 Mich.App. at 264, 833 N.W.2d 331. The Court explained that a deficient claim can be dismissed before any discovery is accomplished because in order to survive a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), a defamation claim must be pleaded "with specificity by identifying the exact language that the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory." Id. at 262, 833 N.W.2d 331. See also Tomkiewicz v. Detroit News, Inc., 246 Mich.App. 662, 666, 635 N.W.2d 36 (2001) (noting "that summary disposition is an essential tool in the protection of First Amendment rights") (quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Cooley Court further stated that protective orders are extremely flexible, noting that

The Court therefore concluded that the standard enunciated in Cahill largely overlaps with the protections afforded under MCR 2.302(C) and MCR 2.116(C)(8). Id. at 266, 833 N.W.2d 331. But in Cooley, the court rules were adequate to protect the anonymous defendant only because he was aware of and involved in the lawsuit. See id. at 252, 270, 833 N.W.2d 331. As the partial dissent in Cooley noted, "[A]n anonymous defendant cannot undertake any efforts to protect against disclosure of his or her identity until the defendant learns about the lawsuit — which may well be too late ...."Id. at 274, 833 N.W.2d 331 (BECKERING, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In the present case, no defendant was notified of the lawsuit and no defendant had been involved with any of the proceedings, which means that there was no one to move for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Thus, one of the two protections that Cooley relied upon is conspicuously absent.9 Further, when defendants are not aware of and not involved with a lawsuit, any protection to be afforded through the entry of a protective order under MCR 2.302(C) is contingent upon a nonparty, e.g., the Internet service provider, asserting the defendants' First Amendment rights. Thus, application of the Cooley protection scheme in the instant case, containing circumstances which Cooley declined to address, appears inadequate to protect the constitutional rights of an anonymous defendant who is unaware of pending litigation.

Therefore, we conclude that when an anonymous defendant in a defamation suit is not shown to be aware of or involved with the lawsuit, some showing by the plaintiff and review by the trial court are required in order to balance the plaintiff's right to pursue a meritorious defamation claim against an anonymous critic's First Amendment rights. Although we agree with the dissent in Cooley that it would have been preferable to also adopt the Dendrite/Cahill standard requiring a plaintiff to further produce evidence sufficient to survive a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we nevertheless are bound by this Court's conclusion in Cooley that MCR 2.302(C) and MCR 2.116(C)(8) alone are sufficient to protect a participating defendant's First Amendment rights. Therefore, we invite the Legislature or the Supreme Court to consider anew this important question.10

Having concluded that we must apply the Cooley standards in this case, we reiterate, as Cooley itself acknowledged, that Cooley does not address a circumstance, such as is presented in the instant case, in which anonymous defendants are unaware of the pending lawsuit. Accordingly, given the specific facts of this case, we find it necessary to impose two additional requirements in an effort to balance the plaintiffs right to pursue a meritorious defamation claim against an anonymous critic's First Amendment rights.

First, we hold that the notice requirement of Dendrite/Cahill is properly applicable here: a plaintiff must have made reasonable efforts to provide the anonymous commenter with reasonable notice that he or she is the subject of a subpoena or motion seeking disclosure of the commenter's identity. That means that at a minimum, if possible, the plaintiff must post a message on the same message board or other forum where the alleged defamatory message appeared, notifying the anonymous defendant of the legal proceedings. See Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460-461; Dendrite, 342 N.J.Super. at 141, 775 A.2d 756.

Second, the plaintiffs claims must be evaluated by the court so that a determination is made as to whether the claims are sufficient to survive a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). This evaluation is to be performed even if there is no pending motion for summary disposition before the court. The Cooley Court explained that summary disposition was a vital tool to protect defendants:

MCR 2.116(I)(1) authorizes a court to perform this sua sponte review. Wilson v. King, 298 Mich.App. 378, 381 n. 4, 827 N.W.2d 203 (2012).

The imposition of these two additional requirements on a plaintiff when a defendant is not aware of the pending lawsuit will operate to ensure that the protections described in Cooley have meaningful effect.

III

A

Under the first of the additional requirements we apply here, a plaintiff seeking the identity of an anonymous Internet critic who is unaware of the pending defamation suit must make reasonable efforts to notify the anonymous commenters of the legal proceedings seeking to uncover their identities in order to give them a reasonable opportunity to respond. While plaintiff in this case made efforts to discern the identities of the anonymous defendants, his affidavits and pleadings do not show that he made any effort to notify the anonymous defendants of the pending action, either through The Warren Forum Internet site or other means. Because plaintiff did not show that he made reasonable attempts to inform the anonymous defendants of his efforts to discover their identities, he has not met the first requirement. Therefore, on this basis alone, the trial court erred by not granting Munem's motion seeking a protective order.

B

Further, plaintiffs claims are facially deficient and cannot survive a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8). As noted earlier, "[a] plaintiff claiming defamation must plead a defamation claim with specificity by identifying the exact language that the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory." Cooley, 300 Mich. App. at 262, 833 N.W.2d 331. Here, the alleged defamatory statements were not identified in plaintiffs complaint. Instead, plaintiff only (and for the first time) cited the alleged defamatory statements in his response to Munem's motion for a protective order. Thus, defendants were entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), and it was improper to permit plaintiff to depose Munem.

C

MCR 2.116(I)(5) requires that if summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8), as is the case here, plaintiffs shall be given the opportunity to amend their pleadings, unless the amendment would be futile. Weymers v. Khera, 454 Mich. 639, 658, 563 N.W.2d 647 (1997). Thus, even though plaintiff's complaint is patently deficient by virtue of his failure to cite the actual complained-of statements in the complaint, we will analyze the alleged defamatory statements to determine whether allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint to contain the contents of these statements would be futile.

In Michigan, the four basic elements of a defamation claim are as follows:

As noted earlier, the First Amendment demands that, related to a defendant's "fault," if the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, then the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant made the statement with actual malice. Ireland, 230 Mich.App. at 622, 584 N.W.2d 632.

When determining whether statements made against public officials amount to unprotected defamation, appellate courts must make an independent examination of the whole record to ensure against forbidden intrusions into the field of free expression. Smith, 487 Mich. at 112 n. 16, 793 N.W.2d 533; Ireland, 230 Mich.App. at 613, 584 N.W.2d 632; Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr., Inc. v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 213 Mich.App. 317, 322, 539 N.W.2d 774 (1995). Courts must examine the statements and the circumstances under which they were made to determine whether the statements are subject to First Amendment protection. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 285, 84 S.Ct. 710; Northland Wheels, 213 Mich.App. at 322, 539 N.W.2d 774. Whether a statement is actually capable of defamatory meaning is a preliminary question of law for the court to decide. Ireland, 230 Mich. App. at 619, 584 N.W.2d 632.

"[I]n general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse." McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511. "A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions — and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount — leads to a comparable `self-censorship.'" New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279, 84 S.Ct. 710. "Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so." Id. "[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and ... may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." Id. at 270, 84 S.Ct. 710. "Even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate, since it brings about the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." Id. at 279 n. 19, 84 S.Ct. 710 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

To be considered defamatory, statements must assert facts that are "provable as false." Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). Even statements couched in terms of opinion may often imply an assertion of objective fact and, thus, can be defamatory. Id. at 19-20, 110 S.Ct. 2695; Smith, 487 Mich. at 128, 793 N.W.2d 533. "The dispositive question ... is whether a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the statement implies a defamatory meaning." Smith, 487 Mich. at 128, 793 N.W.2d 533.

Accusations of criminal activity are considered "defamation per se" under the law and so do not require proof of damage to the plaintiffs reputation. Tomkiewicz, 246 Mich.App. at 667 n. 2, 635 N.W.2d 36; Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich.App. 723, 728-729, 613 N.W.2d 378 (2000). However, not all statements that can be read as accusations of a crime or misconduct should be considered assertions of fact. The First Amendment protects statements that cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual from serving as the basis for a defamation action or similar claim under state law. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. 2695; Falwell, 485 U.S. at 50, 53-55, 108 S.Ct. 876; Ireland, 230 Mich.App at 617, 584 N.W.2d 632. Such statements include the usual rhetorical hyperbole and imaginative expression often found in satires, parodies, and cartoons. Falwell, 485 U.S. at 53-54, 108 S.Ct. 876; Ireland, 230 Mich.App. at 617-618, 584 N.W.2d 632. This is true even when the statements are designed to be highly offensive to the person criticized, and even if, when read literally, the statements can be interpreted as accusations of criminal activity. Terms such as "blackmailer," "traitor," "crook," "steal," and "criminal activities" must be read in context to determine whether they are merely exaggerations of the type often used in public commentary. Greenbelt Coop. Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970); Kevorkian v. American Med. Ass'n, 237 Mich.App. 1, 7-8, 602 N.W.2d 233 (1999). Casual use of these terms and similar epithets "is the language of the rough-and-tumble world of politics. It is core political speech. It is consumed by an often skeptical and wary electorate" and is not seriously regarded as asserting factual truth. In re Chmura (After Remand), 464 Mich. 58, 82, 626 N.W.2d 876 (2001). If a reasonable reader would understand these epithets as merely "rhetorical hyperbole" meant to express strong disapproval rather than an accusation of criminal activity or actual misconduct, they cannot be regarded as defamatory. Greenbelt, 398 U.S. at 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537. See also Ireland, 230 Mich.App. at 618-619, 584 N.W.2d 632.

The context and forum in which statements appear also affect whether a reasonable reader would interpret the statements as asserting provable facts. Courts that have considered the matter have concluded that Internet message boards and similar communication platforms are generally regarded as containing statements of pure opinion rather than statements or implications of actual, provable fact. See Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 696-698, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 40 (2012); Sandals Resorts Int'l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 925 N.Y.S.2d 407, 415-416, 86 A.D.3d 32 (2011); Obsidian Fin. Group, LLC v. Cox, 812 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1223-1224 (D.Or., 2011); Cahill, 884 A.2d at 465. "[A]ny reader familiar with the culture of... most electronic bulletin boards ... would know that board culture encourages discussion participants to play fast and loose with facts.... Indeed, the very fact that most of the posters remain anonymous, or pseudonymous, is a cue to discount their statements accordingly." Summit Bank, 206 Cal.App.4th at 696-697, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 40 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The statements at issue in this case were posted on The Warren Forum and were in response to two events that had been covered by the local news media: (1) the discovery that 3,647 tons of road salt was missing from the city's supply and might have been "misappropriate[ed]," and (2) the city's decision to purchase new garbage trucks, which some members of the community had concluded were not really needed.

As noted earlier, two of the statements were responses to a thread entitled, "Where did our road salt go?" The first allegedly defamatory statement was posted by someone using the pseudonym "northend":

This message cannot be construed as asserting as a fact that plaintiff stole or was involved in the theft of the salt. Nowhere does northend state that plaintiff was involved with the salt's disappearance, only that the salt may be near a sports complex where plaintiff purportedly spends time. Thus, this statement is not defamatory as a matter of law.

In the same discussion thread, user "yogi" stated, "[T]he pizza box maker sold it! him an Gus probably split the money." This appears to be someone's attempt at a joke. A reasonable reader would not take the statement literally. First, the introduction of a "pizza box maker" seems to be a non sequitur, which itself suggests a humorous intent. Second, the use of the exclamation point also connotes a humorous intent.12 Finally, the use of the word "probably" makes the purported asserted fact hardly provable. Thus, when read in context, a reasonable reader would understand these words as being merely rhetorical hyperbole, and they cannot be regarded as defamatory.

The other statements in issue were replies to an initial posting titled "MORE sanitation trucks? Yep," which concerned the city's decision to buy additional new garbage trucks. The third allegedly defamatory statement was posted by hatersrlosers in this thread and stated:

This statement on its face cannot be taken seriously as asserting a fact. The use of the ":P" emoticon makes it patently clear that the commenter was making a joke. As noted earlier, a ":P" emoticon is used to represent a face with its tongue sticking out to denote a joke or sarcasm. Thus, a reasonable reader could not view the statement as defamatory.

Later in this discussion regarding the garbage trucks, pstigerfan posted the following:

Again, a reasonable reader would not take this statement literally. The tone of the entire statement is sarcastic and humorous. The writer obviously does not think that Mayor Fouts has a "better idea" of how to run Warren compared with how other community leaders run their communities. And the vision of plaintiff sneaking into other departments to steal tires off of other city vehicles is so absurd that the vision of it is comical. Thus, when viewed in context, the entire statement cannot be deemed to be an assertion of a provable fact, and it is not defamatory.

In sum, plaintiff maintains that all of the statements constitute actionable statements of fact that accuse him of stealing public property. Review of these statements in context leads us to conclude that they cannot be regarded as assertions of fact but, instead, are only acerbic critical comments directed at plaintiff based on facts that were already public knowledge, namely the apparent misappropriation of a large amount of rock salt and the controversial purchase of additional garbage trucks. The joking, hostile, and sarcastic manner of the comments, the use of an emoticon showing someone sticking their tongue out, and the far-fetched suggestion that plaintiff somehow hid over 3,600 tons of salt near the city sports complex all indicate that these comments were made facetiously and with the intent to ridicule, criticize, and denigrate plaintiff rather than to assert knowledge of actual facts. Examination of the statements and the circumstances under which they were made show them to be mere expressions of rhetorical hyperbole and not defamatory as a matter of law. Therefore, allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint would be futile.

We reverse the trial court's decision to allow discovery of Munem for the purpose of identifying the anonymous defendants, and we remand for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of defendants. Munem, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. We do not retain jurisdiction.

TALBOT, P.J., concurred with WILDER, J.

STEPHENS, J. (concurring).

I concur with my colleagues that this matter should be reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of defendants. I write separately to address with specificity my belief that Michigan should adopt the analysis of the Delaware Supreme Court in Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 457, 462-464 (Del., 2005), in which that court noted that while a plaintiff who is a public figure needs to prove actual malice to prevail on a claim of defamation, proving malice when the identity of the defendant is unknown is unduly burdensome. Thus, the plaintiff need not plead facts in support of the element of actual malice in order to ascertain the identity of the person or persons who authored the defamatory statements.

The reasoning of the Cahill court is compelling that

I understand that there is a significant split of opinion among other jurisdictions on this issue. As the majority has noted, many jurisdictions have followed some blend of Dendrite Int'l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (NJ App, 2001), and Cahill with some taking the Dendrite approach on actual malice and others adopting the Cahill standard. I urge that Michigan follow the analysis and reasoning in Cahill given the extreme difficulty of proving the malice of those cloaked in anonymity.