68 N.Y.2d 283 (1986)
An expression of pure opinion is not actionable in a defamation claim, while a mixed opinion, implying the speaker knows undisclosed facts justifying the opinion, is actionable.
Summary
Louise Steinhilber sued the Communications Workers of America and union officers for defamation based on a recorded message calling her a “scab” and a banner with similar language. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that both the recorded message and the banner were expressions of pure opinion, protected under the First Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of considering the context of the communication, including the circumstances of a labor dispute, in distinguishing between actionable fact and protected opinion.
Facts
Louise Steinhilber, a member of the Communications Workers of America, Local 1120, worked during a union strike in violation of union rules. She later resigned from the union. The union fined her for working during the strike, and authorized steps to collect the unpaid fine. A tape-recorded message, played to union members, referred to Steinhilber as a “scab” and made unflattering remarks about her. A banner displayed during picketing labeled her as “#1 SCAB.” Steinhilber sued for defamation.
Procedural History
The trial court dismissed the first cause of action against Schatzel and the second against Martini but otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, concluding that both communications were statements of pure opinion. The dissent would have allowed the first cause of action, arguing that the taped message contained mixed fact and opinion. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the statements in the tape-recorded message and on the banner were expressions of pure opinion, protected under the First Amendment, or actionable statements of fact or mixed opinion.
Holding
Yes, because both the taped message and the banner were expressions of pure opinion, considering their context within a labor dispute and the use of rhetorical hyperbole.
Court’s Reasoning
The court held that an expression of pure opinion is not actionable under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. because there is no such thing as a false idea. A pure opinion is a statement of opinion accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or, if unaccompanied by a factual recitation, does not imply that it is based on undisclosed facts. A mixed opinion, on the other hand, implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, and is actionable. The court emphasized that determining whether a statement is fact or opinion is a question of law for the court, based on how the average person would understand the communication. The court considered the context of the communications, including the circumstances of a labor dispute, where “exaggerated rhetoric” is commonplace. The court found that the tape-recorded message, with its heavy-handed and nonsensical humor, and the scurrilous banner would be understood as pure opinion, not as assertions of fact. The court referenced Letter Carriers v. Austin, noting that even the term “traitor” could be considered rhetorical hyperbole in the context of a labor dispute. The court stated, “even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of opinion, and thus be privileged, when made in public debate, heated labor dispute, or other circumstances in which an ‘audience may anticipate [the use] of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole’”.