A newspaper runs a column on the editorial page once a week written by Julie James. The column is entitled “My Opinion.” One week, James writes a column about animals, such as cats and dogs, being stolen from people’s yards and being sold to medical and cosmetic testing laboratories. The column includes information from police reports and statements from some people whose animals were stolen. The columnist makes clear that she thinks stealing animals for experimental purposes is a terrible thing to do. Then the column says, “Sam Jones, a deputy sheriff in Adams County, has received some of these animals and sold them to George Smith. Smith, in turn, sold them to the testing labs. While it is unclear whether Jones knew the animals were stolen, he knew that he was being a rotten and

repulsive person, and dealing with people who—like himself—are among the lowest of the low.” Jones brings suit for libel based on the words “rotten,” “repulsive,” and “lowest of the low.” Assuming Jones can prove all the elements of the plaintiff’s case, what is the newspaper’s (and columnist’s) one best defense? Will it be a successful defense? Why or why not?

What will be an ideal response?

The best defense would be to argue that the words were the newspaper’s and the columnist’s “opinion.” Based on the Ollman v. Evans test, the paper would say that: (a) the words “rotten,” “repulsive,” and “lowest of the low” are slang, and are not statements of fact; (b) if taken literally, the words may be verifiable, but that if considered as slang they are not; (c) the specific context of the statement was a column entitled “My Opinion”; and (d) the general context of the story was the editorial page, a clear sign that it was meant to be opinion. Also, considering the Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. case, the facts on which the opinion was based were spelled out, leaving no implication of unstated defamatory facts.