First Amendment defamation law and the grant of summary judgment based on that misstatement is clearly incorrect. But “we may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.” Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC, 728 F.3d 592, 601 n. 9 (6th Cir.2013). Therefore, we consider SBA List’s counter-argument that Driehaus cannot satisfy the elements of his state law defamation action, which would entitle SBA List to summary judgment on that basis. B. Ohio Defamation Analysis Under Ohio law, “it is for the court to decide as a matter of law whether certain statements alleged to be defamatory are actionable or not.” Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669 (1983) (overruled on other grounds by Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (2007) (<HOLDING>)). Moreover, “[wjhether the evidence in the
recognizing falselight invasion of privacy recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records holding that a claim for falselight invasion of privacy  requires the pleading of special damages recognizing a right to privacy in avoiding disclosure of personal matters holding that statute outlawing use of contraceptive devices was an unlawful invasion of the privacy of marital relationship