contempt, or ridicule, the Houston Bureau confirmed that businesses are not obligated to seek accreditation and must pay for the designation. Accordingly, the allegations regarding John Moore’s purported non-accreditation are not defamatory. Likewise, the statement on the Houston Bureau website from 2010 to 2012 that listed John Moore as “not rated” is not defamatory. Even if untrue, not being rated does not expose John Moore “to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 73.001. The statement does not suggest that John Moore committed some wrong or engaged in any nefarious activities. Like being unaccredited by the Bureau, having no rating on the website suggests merely that John Moore has no rating. See Musser, 723 S.W.2d at 655 (<HOLDING>). b. Advertising excellence awards Next, John
holding under south carolina law where words themselves do not impute the commission of a crime the juiy may consider surrounding circumstances to determine whether statement was defamatory because it charged the commission of a crime recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence holding statement not defamatory as matter of law that does not charge plaintiff with commission of a crime violation of any law or contract or with any unethical acts and business dealings holding that a written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer holding that a violation of a rightofway statute is negligence as a matter of law