Opinion ID: 774843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: You can die from taking this product.

Text: 67 The district court held, sua sponte, that[e]ven if Metabolife proved its prima facie case of falsity about the statement that You can die from taking this product,  the statement is protected as a `rational interpretation' of the ambiguous and unresolved state of scientific knowledge regarding the safety of products like Metabolife.  72 F. Supp. 2d at 1170. The court concluded that, Given the controversy surrounding the safety of Metabolife 356, Defendant Blackburn's statement is incapable of supporting a finding of actual malice. Id. at 1171. 68 At this point, the context of Dr. Blackburn's statement should be discussed. Only a small portion of Dr. Blackburn's interview with Wornick was broadcast during theinvestigative report -the rest was edited out. The full text of the relevant portion of the interview shows that Dr. Blackburn actually said: 69 The documents from the FDA hearings remained on the Internet in 1999, when we did this work years ago, and they know, even today as I know, there are people taking similar types of these products who are getting heart attacks, and of course the abuse [sic] can lead to death. But I mean, you can die from taking this product. 70 All the audience heard from this portion of the interview was You can die from taking this product. 71 On our facts, Dr. Blackburn is not responsible for the subsequent editing of his interview -he is only responsible for his comments in their full and complete form, not the sound bites they became. When viewed in its entirety, his statement makes two assertions: (1) people using products similar to Metabolife 356 have had incidents of heart attacks, and (2) abuse of Metabolife 356 can cause death. Metabolife does not dispute the validity of these statements anywhere in its pleadings. Accordingly, the dismissal of the causes of action against Dr. Blackburn is affirmed. 72 As for the rational interpretation doctrine, it has no bearing on Dr. Blackburn's statement as edited by Wornick and her co-defendants. The protection for rational interpretation serves First Amendment principles by allowing an author the interpretive license that is necessary when relying upon ambiguous sources. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 519 (1991). The district court applied the doctrine to Dr. Blackburn's statement because [i]f the First Amendment provides heightened protection for rational comment on stereo speakers, 17 it should also protect scientific comment on issues as important as public health.  72 F. Supp. 2d at 1172, fn.15. 73 It is clear that the defendants' editing of Dr. Blackburn's statement changed its meaning. Even if the complete statement is subject to protection under the rational interpretation doctrine, Wornick and her co-defendants cannot piggyback on that protection after they changed its meaning by cutting out the crucial qualification that abuse  can lead to death. The sound bite presented by Wornick and the station finds no protection in the rational interpretation doctrine. 74