Opinion ID: 2566607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of the defense to the facts presented.

Text: ¶ 11 Under the common law defense of fair comment, a statement is generally privileged when it: 1) deals with a matter of public concern; 2) is based on true or privileged facts; and 3) represents the actual opinion of the speaker, but is not made for the sole purpose of causing harm. [14] In making the privilege determination, courts look to the phrasing of the statement, the context in which it appears, the medium through which it is disseminated, the circumstances surrounding its publication, and a consideration of whether the statement implies the existence of undisclosed facts. [15] ¶ 12 First, there is no question that the opinions expressed in the broadcasts involved a matter of public concern. Public health is clearly a matter of public consonance. [16] Furthermore, the availability and skills of surgeons constitute matters relating to a community's public health. [17] ¶ 13 Second, Magnusson does not allege that the stories were false in the sense that they did not accurately report the patients' complaints. [18] Statements about an individual which cannot be proven true or false, because they are opinions [19] or conclusions based on a review of the individual's actions are privileged. [20] Furthermore, statements of pure opinionbased on stated facts or on facts known by the parties or assumed by them to existas a matter of constitutional law, enjoy absolute immunity protected both by the First Amendment and by art. 2, § 22 of the Oklahoma Constitution. [21] Here, all the patients interviewed by Edwards and included in the KFOR broadcasts were clearly basing their statements about the doctor's professionalismboth those patients who were upset with their results and the one patient who was very pleased with hers [22]  on their individual experiences and the opinions or conclusions they developed therefrom. ¶ 14 Third, it is for the court to determine whether a statement is one of fact or opinion. [23] The statements here cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the doctor. [24] Rather, they are in the nature of nonactionable judgmental statements, opinionative but not factual in nature. [25] Furthermore, where the tone of the broadcast is pointed, exaggerated and heavily laden with emotional rhetoric and moral outrage, listeners are put on notice to expect speculation and personal judgment. [26] References to botched surgeries and devastating scars clearly fall within this category rather than being statements which could reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts. ¶ 15 Finally, the overwhelming majority of jurisdictionsincluding the Tenth Circuit applying Oklahoma law [27] faced with the issue of whether to protect similar broadcasts have determined such exaggerated criticisms to be the type of statements that our society, interested in free and heated debate about matters of social concern, has chosen to protect. [28] Finally, the reports were presented as part of the In Your Corner seriesclearly identified as investigations into claims by patients in which both negative and positive disclosures were made about Magnusson and to which the doctor was given the opportunity to respond. [29] There was nothing about the broadcasts indicating that facts were being withheld. Rather, the majority content of the broadcasts were interviews of the patients and quotations of their expressed opinions about the treatment they received. ¶ 16 Whether allegedly defamatory language is constitutionally privileged is a question of law subject to de novo review to ensure that there is no forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression. [30] Applying the standards of the common law fair comment privilege and considering the statements' phrasing, their context, the medium through which they were presented, the circumstances surrounding their publication, and a determination of whether the statements imply the existence of undisclosed facts, we have little difficulty determining that the broadcasts here, both of which were focused on alleged complications arising from plastic surgery and the conditions associated therewith, meet the requirements for application of the common law fair comment privilege.