Court Opinion

ID: 9472951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:15:27.319054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:14.512327
License: Public Domain

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
For the most part, I thoroughly agree with and I am happy to concur in Judge Starr’s thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion. Unfortunately, I cannot fully subscribe to the result reached.
After agonizing over this case, I have finally concluded that it is untenable even to suggest that the statement “Oilman *1036has no status within the profession, but is a pure and simple activist” is an absolutely privileged “opinion.” Indeed, as a former member of the academic community, I am somewhat taken aback by the notion that one’s reputation within the profession (which is easily verifiable) may be so freely and glibly libelled. I can find no meaningful case authority to convince me that the First Amendment is designed to condone such loose muckraking.
Had Evans and Novak said that, in their view, Oilman “appeared to be a person without real status within the profession,” this might be a different case. But they went much further and cited another “well known” scholar to support a verifiable claim that Oilman in fact had “no status within the profession.” I agree with Judge Wald that “the statement says to the ordinary reader [and to the sophisticated reader as well] that, however each individual scholar evaluates excellence, there is an overwhelming consensus that Oilman does not have it.” This is not a privileged opinion.
Having reached this conclusion, I concur in part in Judge Starr’s opinion and concur in full in Judge Wald’s and Judge Scalia’s partial dissents.