Collins v. Detroit Free Press, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Michigan
627 N.W.2d 5 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a public figure to prevail in a defamation claim based on a misquotation, the alteration of their words must result in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. A misquotation that is substantially true, meaning it does not alter the 'gist' or 'sting' of the actual statement in a way that would have a different effect on the reader, is not actionable.

Facts:

Plaintiff, a United States Representative, was seeking reelection when she was interviewed by defendant Ann Hazard-Hargrove of defendant States News Service.
The interview, which concerned plaintiff's views on racism, was tape-recorded.
The defendant Detroit Free Press published an article based on the interview.
The article attributed the following quote to the plaintiff: 'I love the individuals, but I hate the race.'
The tape recording of the interview revealed that plaintiff's actual statement was: 'I love the individuals, but I don’t like the race.'
Plaintiff issued a news release stating she meant to convey that she hated 'the (sins committed by) the white race'.
After plaintiff lost the primary election, the Detroit Free Press published a retraction, admitting the quotation was incorrect.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and other claims against the defendants in a state trial court.
Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that the published quotation was substantially true.
The trial court denied the defendants' motion, finding that the words 'hate' and 'dislike' had substantially different meanings in this context.
Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to the intermediate appellate court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does misquoting a public figure by substituting the word 'hate' for 'don't like' constitute a material change in meaning sufficient to overcome the substantial truth defense in a defamation action?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A deliberate alteration of a public figure's words is not considered false for the purposes of a defamation claim unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. The court applied the 'substantial truth' doctrine, which holds that slight inaccuracies are immaterial if the 'gist' or 'sting' of the defamatory charge is justified. Here, the court compared the published quote ('hate the race') with the actual quote ('don't like the race') within the full context of the interview. It noted that plaintiff also made other strong statements about race and used terms like 'hate' and 'don't like' interchangeably. The court concluded that the gist of the actual statement was the same as the misquotation and that the inaccuracy would not have a different effect on the reader than the literal truth would have produced. Therefore, the statement was substantially true as a matter of law, and there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding its falsity.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the formidable barrier public figures face in defamation litigation due to the First Amendment. By applying the 'material change in meaning' standard from Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, the court demonstrates that even a facially significant word substitution like 'hate' for 'don't like' may not be legally material when viewed in the broader context of the speaker's other statements. This decision provides significant protection to the media, underscoring that the 'substantial truth' doctrine allows for some journalistic inaccuracy as long as the overall substance and 'sting' of a statement are preserved. It signals to lower courts that the falsity analysis in misquotation cases must be holistic, considering the entire communication rather than isolating individual words.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Collins v. Detroit Free Press, Inc. (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature