The Superior Court of King County found for the district on all counts. It ruled that:
- SPS is not "vicariously liable for the student's allegedly defamatory statement that the plaintiffs were accused of racist renting policies"
- the plaintiffs did not prove, "consistent with the First Amendement" that SPS should have censored the reporter's speech
- that the article was a "non-actionable opinion that is not defamatory as a matter of law"
- "Plaintiffs are unable to prove the statement that Hugh and Drake Sisley had been 'accused of racist renting policies' is false."
- "Plaintiffs are unable to prove the defendant was at fault for the student's speech or at best is negligent."
- "Plaintiffs are unable to prove the student's statement caused damage to their reputation." (Even I could have told you that.)
I believe there is still another lawsuit against SPS from the Sisleys over the same article but this one is about the issue of the reporter claiming the properties are "crack shacks and ghetto houses." Unfortunately, for the Sisleys, one of their houses (right across from the school) had been taken over by squatters who used heroin in it. I know this for a fact so I would think that the Court might rule in SPS's favor on that lawsuit as well. I cannot comment on whether the properties are "ghetto houses" - you'd have to come see for yourself if you would make that judgment.