columnists’ assessment of what political science profession thinks of plaintiff “implies the existence of facts inducing that conclusion * * * [with] little * * * factual predicate in the column in suit”
How later courts described this case
- columnists’ assessment of what political science profession thinks of plaintiff “implies the existence of facts inducing that conclusion * * * [with] little * * * factual predicate in the column in suit”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the remand because I believe the statements singled out in Chief Judge Robinson’s opinion as “hybrid” are properly classified as factual statements, not opinion and thus subject to challenge as libelous. While creation of a hybrid fact-opinion classification is intriguing, on balance I believe making hard judgments in each case as to whether a statement is opinion or fact will in the long run make the law of libel easier to understand and comply with. Specifically, I am concerned that courts not have to decide whether the author has backed a hybrid statement with a “full and accurate account of the material background facts”; that sounds too much like an exercise of editorial judgment. In addition, I predict that since hybrid statements will enjoy a privileged status as opinions only if all pertinent background facts are stated completely and accurately or the requisite standard of care is met, the vast majority of such statements ultimately will be treated and tested as facts anyway.