Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co
"Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co." is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the complexities of libel law, particularly concerning the protections afforded to opinions expressed by the press. The case originated in 1975 when a sports commentator from the Lorain Journal suggested that a high school coach may have lied during an investigation related to a fight, prompting the coach to file a libel lawsuit against the newspaper. After a lengthy legal battle spanning 15 years, an Ohio court initially ruled that the commentator's remarks fell under the protection of free speech and were merely opinion. However, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, overturned that ruling, stating that the Ohio court misinterpreted previous case law regarding public figures and the definition of opinion in libel cases. The Court clarified that even public officials have the right to sue for libel when faced with false statements, thus emphasizing that the distinction between fact and opinion must be carefully considered in defamation cases. This ruling highlights the ongoing tension between freedom of speech and the protection against defamatory statements in the media. The dissenting justices argued that the statement in question constituted conjecture and should therefore be protected. This case remains a pivotal reference point in discussions about journalistic expression and the legal standards for libel.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
Date: June 21, 1990
Citation: 497 U.S. 1
Issue: Libel
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that a trial could be held in a libel case against a newspaper, thereby increasing the complexity of libel litigation.
In 1975 a Lorain Journal sports commentator suggested that a high school coach might have lied in an investigation of a fight that took place after a sports event, and the coach sued. For fifteen years, the libel case was considered in various courts before the newspaper obtained a summary judgment from an Ohio court that the article was a constitutionally protected opinion. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court dismissed the court’s summary judgment of the fifteen-year-old suit and ordered that a trial must be held, thereby increasing the time needed to resolve the case.
Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his opinion for the Court, concluded that the Ohio court had mistakenly assumed that Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) created a special, protected press category labeled “opinion.” The Court emphasized that even public officials (the least protected of all) could sue for libel for false defamatory statements, and trials could be held. Naturally, a newspaper had all of the other protections granted it under the current complex libel law. Justice Thurgood Marshall joined Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in dissent, agreeing that there was no special privilege for opinion, but that this article was protected because it was conjecture.