Court Opinion

ID: 9762511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:25:43.898151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.145734
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were correct as to whether a newspaper can publish the opinion of a private citizen and not expose either party to a suit for defamation or invasion of privacy under these circumstances.
Yancey was arrested 13 days after a brutal double homicide and following his false confession to a relative that he had committed the murders. The newspaper clearly quotes the statements of various neighbors that this man was a smooth talker, a con artist and someone to whom the citizen would not lend money. It is doubtful that anyone could read this as being anything more than the person’s opinion. The trial judge found that the term “con artist” is too indefinite to be considered a factual statement, and granted a summary judgment citing the authority of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) and Ollman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C.Cir.1984). The Court of Appeals affirmed.
There is a fine line as to whether the public nature and the heinousness of the crimes give the newspaper the right to interview and publish the opinions that were expressed about Yancey’s background. However, it does seem clear that the phrase “con artist” is a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact. It is well settled constitutionally that statements of opinion cannot form the basis of a claim for defamation. Gertz, supra; Cf. Haynes v. McConnell, Ky.App., 642 S.W.2d 902 (1982).
It is clear from the imprecise language used by Hamilton, the personal interview style of the article and the fact that the story was a character profile rather than a “news” story, that the description of Yan-cey as a “con artist” comes within the protection for an expression of an opinion. The publication of such an opinion is not *861the basis for an action in defamation or invasion of privacy. Such an issue is exclusively a matter of law for determination by the court with no factual issue requiring a jury determination. The right of an individual to hold and freely express a personal opinion has long been recognized as an essential privilege in our constitutional system of government. Under the circumstances presented here, the publication of such a personal opinion is not actionable. The Court of Appeals and the circuit court were correct. Oilman correctly summarizes the applicable law.