Individual has actionable defamation claim for published anecdotes that are verifiably false and capable of defamatory meaning

Law Reporter, May 2001

Weyrich v. New Republic, inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an individual has an actionable defamation claim for anecdotes published as part of a magazine article that are verifiably false and capable of defamatory meaning. The court also held that a reporter's use of the term "paranoid" to describe the subject of the article in question was not defamatory because it was used in its popular, not clinical, sense.

Here, Weyrich brought a defamation action against a magazine for an article published about him. Plaintiff claimed the article identified him as having a mental illness and relied on false and misleading anecdotes to describe him. A trial court dismissed the action.

Reversing in part, the D.C. Circuit noted that, for a statement to be actionable under the First Amendment, it must at a minimum express or imply a verifiably false fact about an individual. A statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern that does not contain a provably false fact will receive full constitutional protection. To determine whether a statement expressed or implied a verifiably false fact, the court explained, the court must consider the statement in context. The article, while critical of plaintiff, uses the term "paranoia" in its popular, not clinical, sense, the court said. The article never claims to make a psychological pronouncement, nor would a reasonable reader understand it to do so, especially since the magazine is wellknown for its political commentary. Looking at such statements in isolation, the court found, a reasonable reader may interpret them to attribute a mental illness to plaintiff. However, placed in their proper context, they are not understood to mean that. Thus, plaintiffs claim that defendant attributed a mental illness to him is not actionable.

Analyzing the anecdotes in the article, the court noted that these are verifiable facts and are presented as the truth about plaintiff. The anecdotes are capable of defamatory meaning, the court explained, if they tend to injure plaintiff in his trade, profession, or community standing. The court found that some of the anecdotes may be defamatory if they were fabricated. As an example, the court cited one anecdote that made plaintiff appear highly irrational and unsound. There is no doubt, the court noted, that the article's repeated tale of plaintiffs volatile temper and apparent emotional instability could lead a reasonable reader to conclude that plaintiff is emotionally unstable and unfit for his profession.

Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to the trial court to distinguish those anecdotes that are both verifiably false and capable of defamatory meaning from those that are not.

Plaintiff's Counsel Larry Klayman, Washington, D.C.