noting the specific language at issue, "with Higgins describing Wampler as a 'ruthless spectator' possessed of 'self-centered greed,' " were phrases which were "all inherently imprecise and subject to myriad subjective interpretations"
How later courts described this case
- noting the specific language at issue, "with Higgins describing Wampler as a 'ruthless spectator' possessed of 'self-centered greed,' " were phrases which were "all inherently imprecise and subject to myriad subjective interpretations"
- "[T]he language surrounding the averred defamatory remarks may place the reasonable reader on notice that what is being read is the opinion of the writer."
- private individual sued another private individual who expressed protected opinions in a writing criticizing the plaintiff’s ethics
- “A classic example of a statement with a well-defined meaning is an accusation of a crime.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. Circleville is still a small town, small enough, at least, that anyone who truly cared could quickly learn whether what Higgins wrote about Wampler was true. Also, most people are smart enough to look at who’s *133 doing the squawking before they draw any conclusions about the person being squawked about. That’s part of the beauty of small-town life.
Cooper & Elliot, Charles H. Cooper, Jr., Rex H. Elliot and Aaron D. Epstein, for appellant.
McGrath & Breitfeller, L.L.P., and Thomas R. McGrath; and James K. Hill, for appellee.
But this case has implications beyond the corner of Scioto and West Main. Thus, I dissent and reiterate my statements in Vail v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 279, 285-287 , 649 N.E.2d 182, 187-189 (Pfeifer, J., concurring in judgment only), that the Ohio Constitution does not create an additional, separate constitutional privilege for opinion. Instead we should look at whether the statements made are provably false or whether the statements can be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), 497 U.S. 1, 19-20 , 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 18-19 . In this case, I believe that there are enough statements within Higgins’s hyperbole that either are provable as false or could be interpreted as stating actual facts about Wampler that Wampler should have survived summary judgment.
In the end, Wampler may have suffered a few dollars worth of damages — or whatever the going rate is for an apology.