Where is the distinction between libel and publicly voiced opinion?
<p>I've always been interested in issues related to free speech, but they've also always seemed a bit tricky to make any determinations over as they encompass both opinions and strict legal codes. </p>

<p>As I understand it, libel is construed as untruthful statements that damage a company in some way. But, what if someone's personal opinion is that a company is bad in some way, and then the company loses money as a result of that person voicing that opinion? Can they be sued? </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As I understand it, libel is construed as untruthful statements that
  damage a company in some way. But, what if someone's personal opinion
  is that a company is bad in some way, and the company loses money as a
  result? Can they be sued?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Libel is a statement that tends to damage someone's reputation that is made to someone other than the subject of the statement. Truth was historically a defense to liability for libel (although in many circumstances in the United States is has been made part of the prima facie case that must be proved by an accuser).</p>

<p>Ordinarily a libel must be a statement of fact, and a mere opinion is not actionable. But, sometimes an opinion so clearly implies a closely related statement of fact in a particular context that the implied statement of fact arising from the statement of opinion, if false, is actionable.</p>

<p>Anybody can be sued, but they will not have a viable cause of action and their suit will be dismissed, if the alleged statement is truly a statement of opinion, even if it has consequences for a person's reputation and causes them economic harm.</p>

<p>For example, if I say that Calvin Klein clothes look better than American Outfitter's clothes, and people care about my opinion and purchase fewer American Outfitter's clothes, I have not committed actionable libel (even if I don't sincerely believe what I said since it is an opinion either way), even though my statement harmed the company that makes American Outfitter clothes. If I were a celebrity known for being fashionable, such a scenario might even be a plausible one. </p>

<p>It depends on what you say about the business. If you accuse the business of professional incompetence (for example, "the vet murdered my dog by stabbing it in the heart"), you can be sued – this is in the realm of <em>per se</em> libel, where they don't have to prove that they were harmed. On the other hand, you can defend yourself in the suit if you can show that the claim is true. (You claim that the statement is true, plaintiff presents evidence that it is false, the jury decides whose evidence is more persuasive). If you prefix the statement by the expression "In my opinion,...", it's the same, since merely saying that it's your opinion does not convert a defamatory statement into a non-defamatory one. The standard is not that you have to actually assert a false damaging statement, you can be liable for defamation if you <em>imply</em> a false statement. Any statement which would be understood to be a statement of fact and which causes damage to another person could be the basis for a defamation suit, such as the statement "Dr. X supports Proposition X" (where that is a financial death-sentence in the local political context), and again, if the accusation is true, it is not defamatory.</p>

<p>Some negative statements especially web page reviews spew negative attitude, but don't make any factual claim (e.g. "Dr. X is the worst human being ever, his staff are terrible"). For instance, from <a href="http://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/california-courts-of-appeal-cases/vogel-v-felice/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vogel v. Felice</a>, defendant called plaintiff one of the top 10 dumbasses. The court rejected this as a defamatory statement because</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>in order to support a defamation claim, the challenged statement must
  be found to convey “a provably false factual assertion.” (<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/225/720.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Moyer v.
  Amador Valley J. Union High School Dist</a>. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d
  720). A statement that the plaintiff is a “Dumb Ass,” even first among
  “Dumb Asses,” communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof
  or refutation. It is true that “dumb” by itself can convey the
  relatively concrete meaning “lacking in intelligence.” Even so,
  depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively
  assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable
  virtues as judgment or wisdom. To call a man “dumb” often means no
  more than to call him a “fool.” One man’s fool may be another’s
  savant. Indeed, a corollary of Lincoln’s famous aphorism is that every
  person is a fool some of the time.
  Here defendant did not use “dumb” in isolation, but as part of the
  idiomatic phrase, “dumb ass.” When applied to a whole human being, the
  term “ass” is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of
  factual content. Adding the word “dumb” merely converts “contemptible
  person” to “contemptible fool.” Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted
  by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be
  found to <strong>convey a provable factual proposition</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>[emphasis added]. Calling someone terrible or the worst human, etc. does not state or imply a verifiable proposition.</p>

<p>It is very easy to cross the line and say something that is untrue. In the case of <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1640966.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bentley Reserve v. Papalios</a>, defendant posted negative statements about an apartment building, saying...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Sadly, the Building is (newly) owned and occupied by a sociopathic
  narcissist—who celebrates making the lives of tenants hell.   Of the
  16 mostly-long-term tenants who lived in the Building when the new
  owners moved in, the new owners' noise, intrusions, and other
  abhorrent behaviors (likely) contributed to the death of three tenants
  [redacted], and the departure of eight more ([redacted]) in very short
  order.   Notice how they cleared-out all the upper-floor units, so
  they could charge higher rents? They have sought evictions of 6 of
  those long-term tenants, even though rent was paid-in-full, and those
  tenants bothered nobody.   And what they did to evict [redacted], who
  put many of tens of thousands of dollars into their unit, was horrific
  and shameful.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbolic statements about being a sociopathic narcissist, celebrating making the lives of tenants hell, and claims of engaging in other abhorrent behaviors are not statements of fact. (However, you could accuse a person of having been <em>diagnosed</em> to be a sociopath, and that would be defamatory; you could say something like "As a professional psychiatrist, I find his behavior to be sociopathic", and that would get you sued since it implies a non-existent professional diagnosis). Saying that plaintiff "(likely) contributed to death" is defamatory (slapping on "likely", again, does not sanitize a defamatory statement). Of course, if you can establish that plaintiff <em>did</em> contribute to someone's death, then it's a true statement, not a defamatory one.</p>

<p>The case of <a href="https://www.citizen.org/our-work/litigation/cases/dietz-v-perez" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dietz v. Perez</a> is also of some interest, in part because the details are easily available (e.g. the complaint, various exhibits including the online reviews); eventually this went to trial and the jury <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/jury-verdict-liability-no-damages-yelp-defamation-case" rel="nofollow noreferrer">found that parties had defamed each other</a>, so no damages were awarded.</p>

<p>This is in the context of US law, where the First Amendment provides substantial protection of a person's right to say what they want.</p>

united-states libel