James Edwards v. Detroit News Inc
322 Mich. App. 1, 910 N.W.2d 394 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the context of an opinion piece regarding a public figure, a statement using an ambiguous term like 'leader' is a constitutionally protected expression of opinion, not an actionable statement of fact, if the term is open to multiple plausible interpretations and the plaintiff's own public conduct and associations lend credence to a subjective interpretation.
Facts:
- James Edwards is the creator and host of 'The Political Cesspool' radio show, which he describes as 'pro-White' and standing for 'The Dispossessed Majority.'
- On his show's website, Edwards published 'Statement of Principles' which include wanting to 'revive the White birthrate' and honoring the Confederacy.
- Edwards publicly celebrated that his show would be carried on Stormfront.org, an online forum for white nationalism run by Don Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
- Edwards frequently features David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, as a guest on his show, posts Duke's writings on his website, and is pictured with him.
- On March 17, 2016, The Detroit News published an opinion piece by columnist Bankole Thompson.
- The article contained the sentence: 'Of particular note to some in the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards, David Duke and Thomas Robb...'
- James Edwards does not hold and has never held a formal leadership position or membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwards' attorney sent a letter to The Detroit News and Bankole Thompson demanding a retraction.
- The Detroit News published a clarification stating Edwards 'has no formal position with the Ku Klux Klan' and edited the online version of the article.
- Edwards filed suit against Detroit News, Inc. and Thompson in Wayne Circuit Court (the trial court), alleging defamation and invasion of privacy.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing the statement was protected opinion.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants.
- Edwards, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 a statement in a newspaper opinion piece describing a public figure as a 'leader' of the Ku Klux Klan constitute a protected expression of opinion under the First Amendment, rather than an actionable defamatory statement of fact, when the plaintiff has no formal role in the organization but publicly espouses similar views and associates with KKK-affiliated individuals?
Opinions:
Majority - Swartzle, J.
Yes, the statement constitutes a protected expression of opinion. A statement that is inherently imprecise and open to several plausible interpretations is not an actionable, provably false statement of fact. The term 'leader' has multiple definitions; it can refer to a formal, official position, but it can also refer to an opinion leader or a person of eminent influence within a movement. Given the context of a newspaper opinion piece, where readers expect bias, and Edwards' own public associations with prominent KKK figures like David Duke and Don Black and his espousal of 'pro-White' views, a reader could plausibly interpret 'leader' in the subjective, influential sense. Because the term is both 'necessarily subjective' and not objectively verifiable as false in this context, it is protected opinion speech under the First Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for public figures to succeed in defamation claims, especially concerning political commentary in opinion pieces. It affirms that even a highly inflammatory label can be deemed non-actionable opinion if the specific terminology is ambiguous and the plaintiff's own public behavior provides a plausible basis for the author's subjective characterization. The ruling emphasizes the critical role of context, distinguishing opinion editorials from factual news reporting, thereby granting broader protection to speech that, while damaging, is not a provably false assertion of fact. Future cases involving public figures and associations with extremist groups will likely look to this analysis of ambiguous language and the plaintiff's public persona.
