Also known as: defamatory meanings · defamatory sense · defamatory interpretation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The interpretation that reasonable recipients give to a statement in context. This understanding fixes whether the communication carries a reputation-harming implication even if the speaker privately intended something milder or the words admit multiple readings.
At Roberto's Bistro, head chef Carla told line cooks that manager Mason steals tips straight off their tables. Some cooks understood the words as a literal accusation of theft while others heard only a gripe about the tip pool. Mason's defamation claim turns on whether a reasonable cook in that setting would take Carla's statement as charging criminal conduct.
During an insurance-company training, regional manager Dana said former agent Lucas forged half his applications. Some attendees understood the remark as accusing criminal document forgery while others viewed it as loose criticism of sloppy paperwork. Lucas's defamation action depends on the meaning a reasonable attendee would assign to the words in that context.
In 1963 George Rosenbloom operated as a distributor of nudist magazines in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. During the fall of that year the Special Investigations Squad of the Philadelphia Police Department, commanded by Captain Ferguson, responded to citizen complaints by purchasing magazines from more than twenty newsstands and determining that the publications were obscene. On October 1, 1963, Rosenbloom was arrested while delivering magazines to a newsstand where police were making an arrest. Three days later police obtained a search warrant, raided Rosenbloom's home and a rented barn used as a warehouse, and seized thousands of magazines and books; Rosenbloom surrendered and was arrested a second time. Captain Ferguson telephoned radio station WIP and other local media to report the raid and arrest. WIP broadcast news reports on October 4 that identified Rosenbloom by name and address and described the seized materials as obscene or allegedly obscene. Later broadcasts between October 21 and November 1 covered Rosenbloom's federal lawsuit for injunctive relief and referred to participants as smut distributors and girlie-book peddlers without naming Rosenbloom. In May 1964 a state-court jury acquitted Rosenbloom of the criminal obscenity charges after the trial judge instructed that the magazines were not obscene as a matter of law. Rosenbloom then filed this diversity action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Metromedia, owner of WIP, alleging that the broadcasts constituted libel under Pennsylvania law. The jury returned a verdict for Rosenbloom awarding $25,000 in general damages and $725,000 in punitive damages, the latter reduced by the district court to $250,000 on remittitur; the district court denied Metromedia's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseIn a factory-town bar, supervisor Maria told coworkers that line worker Luis was selling proprietary designs out the back door. Some patrons took the statement as charging literal theft while others heard only a complaint about online joking. Luis's defamation claim hinges on the meaning a reasonable listener in the bar would attribute to Maria's words.
In the 1950s a public controversy developed over the operation of the Belknap County Recreation Area, a ski resort and recreational facility owned and operated by Belknap County, New Hampshire. Respondent Baer was employed by the three elected Belknap County Commissioners as Supervisor of the Area and was directly responsible for its management and financial affairs. In 1959 the New Hampshire Legislature enacted a statute transferring control of the Recreation Area to a new five-member commission. At least in part to give the new regime a fresh start, Baer was discharged. Six months later, in January 1960 during the first ski season under the new commission, petitioner Rosenblatt, an unpaid columnist for the Laconia Evening Citizen, published a column that compared cash income under the prior and current administrations and asked what had happened to all the money in prior years. Baer filed a civil libel action in New Hampshire Superior Court alleging that the column contained defamatory falsehoods concerning his performance. A jury awarded him damages. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in an opinion reported at 106 N. H. 26, 203 A. 2d 773. Between the trial and the decision of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and directed the parties to address whether Baer was a public official under that decision.
View caseThe meaning is fixed by what a reasonable recipient would understand the words to convey in context. The speaker's private intention does not control. A reasonable but mistaken understanding can still supply the operative meaning.
Supporting sources
No. Only a reasonable recipient's understanding counts. An odd or strained reading by one listener will not establish the legal meaning of the communication.
Supporting sources
The Restatement lists the recipient's understanding of the communication's defamatory meaning as an element the plaintiff must prove. The jury decides whether the statement was so understood.
Supporting sources
…"(b) Its publication by the defendant; "(c) Its application to the plaintiff; "(d) The recipient's understanding of its defamatory meaning; "(e) The recipient's understanding of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; "(f) Special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; "(g) Abuse of a…