Hosszu v. Barrett
2016 WL 4259799, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107032, 202 F.Supp.3d 1101 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provably false factual assertion are protected by the First Amendment. When an author discloses the non-defamatory facts upon which an opinion is based, the statement is generally not actionable because readers are free to draw their own conclusions.
Facts:
- Katinka Hosszu is a world-famous, decorated professional swimmer with numerous corporate sponsorships.
- On May 20, 2015, Casey Barrett, a former Olympic swimmer and commentator, published an article about Hosszu on his blog, 'Cap & Goggles,' and a similar version was published by Swimming World Magazine ('SWM').
- The article questioned whether Hosszu's remarkable athletic success and unusually quick recovery times between events were aided by performance-enhancing drugs.
- Throughout the article, Barrett repeatedly conceded that he had 'no proof' for his suspicions, grounding his commentary in undisputed facts about Hosszu's recent performances and physical changes.
- Barrett compared the situation to past doping scandals involving athletes like Lance Armstrong, arguing that commentators have a duty to voice suspicions even without definitive proof.
- Hosszu alleged that as a result of the articles, sponsors discontinued backing her and she was subjected to heightened drug testing and constant questioning about doping allegations.
- Barrett and SWM later published other articles, one which republished the original statements and others which discussed the general issue of doping in the swimming community.
- These subsequent general articles did not mention Hosszu by name.
Procedural Posture:
- Katinka Hosszu (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit for defamation and false light against Casey Barrett, Swimming World Magazine, and others (Defendants) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
- Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the articles contained constitutionally protected opinion.
- The district court considered the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do articles expressing suspicion about a public figure's potential use of performance-enhancing drugs constitute actionable defamation if the author explicitly disclaims having proof and bases the suspicion on disclosed, undisputed facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge G. Murray Snow
No. Articles that frame suspicions about a public figure as opinion based on disclosed, true facts are not actionable defamation because they are protected by the First Amendment. The court found that a reasonable factfinder could not conclude that Barrett's statements implied a false assertion of objective fact. Applying the Ninth Circuit's three-part test, the court determined: (1) The general tenor of the work suggested opinion, as it was labeled 'commentary' by SWM and published on a blog, a medium known for personal views. (2) Although not hyperbolic, the informal writing style was more akin to commentary than news reporting. (3) Most importantly, the core 'statement'—that Hosszu’s performance should raise suspicions—is a subjective opinion that is not susceptible of being proved true or false. Because Barrett explicitly disclaimed having proof and detailed the non-contested facts that led to his conjecture, he left readers free to form their own conclusions. Therefore, his commentary is protected speech.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant First Amendment protection afforded to opinion and commentary, particularly in the context of sports journalism and online media. It clarifies that authors can raise critical questions and voice suspicions about public figures without incurring defamation liability, provided they do not imply knowledge of undisclosed defamatory facts. By clearly disclosing the non-defamatory factual basis for their opinions, commentators allow the public to evaluate the evidence and form their own conclusions, which is a core function of protected speech. The case serves as a guidepost for distinguishing between a non-actionable, subjective interpretation of facts and an actionable, false assertion of fact.
