Opinion ID: 502426
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Libel Claim

Text: 12 We think it important to begin by setting forth the exact allegations of plaintiffs' complaint. First, plaintiffs alleged that the term amazon was defamatory because it imputed to the girls, who are of elementary school age, criminality in the form of sexual activity and a lack of chastity, when, in fact, they are chaste. Second, plaintiffs alleged that the term defamed them because it historically had, and presently has, the connotations of 'masculine woman' and 'shrew,' [when in fact] none of your minor plaintiffs have any characteristics inappropriate to their sex and age group. Third, plaintiffs alleged that the term was defamatory because it was defined in another article in the same issue of Penthouse as a sexually aggressive and insatiable female who uses a mechanical device for her gratification. 13 Under Rhode Island law, one of the elements of a libel claim is a false and defamatory statement concerning another. Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 520 A.2d 147, 149 (R.I.1987). Penthouse argued below, and the district court agreed, that the libel claim should be dismissed on the ground that the term amazon could not possibly be false because it was a constitutionally-protected statement of opinion. Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3006, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). If the challenged statement is one of opinion rather than fact, then under the First Amendment it generally cannot give rise to a defamation claim. See Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970); McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 841 (1st Cir.1987); Healey, 520 A.2d at 150; cf. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 2781, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974). The determination whether a printed statement is protected opinion or an unprotected factual assertion is a matter of law for the court. Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 978 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 2662, 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985). In making this determination, we examine the statement itself, the article as a whole, and its social context.... McCabe, 814 F.2d at 842. We turn now to a discussion of these three factors. 14 Turning first to the statement itself, we note that the word amazon, like the word scam in McCabe, id., does not have a single precise meaning. The pertinent dictionary definitions of amazon are (1) one of a race or nation of female warriors usu[ally] associated with Scythia or Asia Minor with whom the ancient Greeks of mythology repeatedly warred, (2) a female warrior, or (3) a tall strong masculine woman. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 66 (1981). 15 None of these definitions imputes criminality or sexual conduct, thus negating plaintiffs' first theory of why the term is defamatory. As for plaintiffs' second theory--that the term is defamatory because it means masculine woman--we do not think that the phrase masculine woman is capable of any more precise a definition than amazon. There is a sufficiently wide spectrum of reasonable opinion as to what constitutes appropriate gender-correlated behavior for schoolgirls that it would be impossible to prove the truth or falsity of the statement that the girls are masculine women. Cf. McCabe, 814 F.2d at 842. 16 Plaintiffs' third theory is that the term as used in the headline on page 144 is defamatory because it is defined in another article on page 72 of the same issue of Penthouse as a sexually aggressive and insatiable female who uses mechanical means for her gratification. Accepting as true the allegation as to what appears on page 72, we think it only strengthens the conclusion that the term has no one precise meaning, that it is used sometimes literally and sometimes figuratively, and thus that its application to the girls cannot be shown to be either true or false. If the magazine had expressly indicated that the term as the editor used it in the headline was meant to be read together with another author's definition of the term in another, wholly unrelated article appearing 72 pages away, our conclusion might be different. 2 Absent any such indication, we do not think plaintiffs are entitled to pick and choose from among the various possible definitions of amazon and fasten upon the most obscure and esoteric definition simply because they find it the most offensive. 17 We therefore conclude that the characterization of the girls as amazons, considered by itself, was not an assertion of fact but instead the statement of an opinion. It was no more than rhetorical hyperbole.... Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. at 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1542. 18 A reading of the article as a whole strengthens our conclusion that the term amazon was an expression of opinion. The article merely narrates, in a fashion intended to be humorous, the playground skirmishes and the principal's decision to separate the sexes. Nothing in the article mentions or suggests any sort of sexual conduct. Its description of girls attacking boys suggests that amazon was used in the sense of female warrior and even then only in an exaggerated, satirical manner. And plaintiffs' complaint does not challenge either the accuracy of the narrative or the use of amazon in its sense of female warrior. 19 Finally, we look at the broader social context in which the allegedly defamatory statement appeared. As the District of Columbia Circuit has stated, [s]ome types of writing or speech by custom or convention signal to readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact. Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 983 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1127, 105 S.Ct. 2662, 86 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985). We think that Penthouse 's Hard Times column, in which the article about the girls appeared, is an example of a well-recognized genre: articles or fragments gleaned from the nation's press, appearing under satirical headlines penned by a magazine's editors and followed by the editors' wry comments. Sometimes the editors' barbs are directed at the substance of the story, sometimes at the manner in which it was covered or not covered, and sometimes at bizarre or unfortunate typographical errors. This genre is by now common enough, across a broad spectrum of publications, that the average reader understands that the headline is the editors' ironic comment upon, rather than a literal representation of, what appears in the story reprinted from another source. Here, the editors' use of this genre, and their closing comment that [i]n the battle of the sexes, we'd certainly score this round for the girls, clearly signalled the reader that the headline Little Amazons Attack Boys was satirical opinion rather than serious fact. 20 We also think it significant that the offending headline appeared in a magazine rather than a newspaper or some other publication. As the Eighth Circuit has observed, [t]he magazines have a tradition of more colorful, even feisty language, than do dailies; they are also required to condense to a few paragraphs those issues to which local papers devote days of coverage and thousands of inches of space. Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 788 F.2d 1300, 1304 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 272, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). Here, as in Janklow, the magazine's generally freer style of personal expression ... would signal the reader to expect a fair amount of opinion. Id. 21 There is another sense in which the larger social context suggests that the headline was a statement of opinion rather than of fact. We must acknowledge that at present there is a great deal of debate and disagreement in our society about whether and how gender affects and ought to affect behavior. Whether or not the playground incidents themselves could be characterized as matters of public concern, they certainly could be thought to implicate that larger theme. And the reader would certainly understand, after reading the editor's satirical remark about the battle of the sexes, that the editor had included the article because it described a reversal of typical sex roles. In the charged context of a debate over a matter of public concern, the reader will expect a certain amount of hyperbole and loose characterization--in short, a certain amount of opinion. This is particularly true with respect to a headline, which is commonly understood to function primarily as an attention-getter. We have no doubt that the headline in the instant case would have been taken in this spirit. 22 In sum, an examination of the statement, the article, and the larger social context convinces us as a matter of law that the term amazons was a constitutionally-protected expression of opinion. The district court therefore correctly dismissed plaintiffs' libel claim.