Murray v. Schlosser
41 Conn. Supp. 362, 41 Conn. Super. Ct. 362, 574 A.2d 1339 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Derogatory statements about a private individual's physical appearance, even when framed as part of a contest or entertainment segment, may be considered actionable statements of fact rather than protected opinion if the context indicates they are intended solely for ridicule.
Facts:
- Radio station WCCC FM employed Joseph E. Schlosser (known as Sebastian) and Diane Novak as disc jockeys.
- Sebastian and Novak hosted a weekly radio segment called 'Berate the Brides.'
- During the segment, they would select a photograph from the weekly 'Weddings' page of the Hartford Courant and solicit votes from listeners for the 'dog of the week.'
- On July 7, 1988, the hosts discussed the wedding photograph of one of the plaintiffs.
- Sebastian stated on air that the plaintiff was 'too ugly to even rate' and had won the 'dog of the week' prize, consisting of a case of Ken-L-Ration dog food and a dog collar.
- Novak added that she would not want even her worst enemy to be with the plaintiff.
- The radio station's program director, Ted Sellers, and its owner, Greater Hartford Communications Corporation (GHCC), were aware of the segment and encouraged its broadcast.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, a recently married couple, filed a multi-count complaint in a Connecticut trial court against two disc jockeys, the radio station's program director, and the station's corporate owner.
- The complaint alleged causes of action for defamation, invasion of privacy (false light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendant disc jockeys, Joseph Schlosser and Diane Novak, filed a motion to strike the counts of defamation and invasion of privacy against them.
- The defendant program director, Ted Sellers, and the corporate owner, GHCC, filed a motion to strike all counts against them.
- The defendants argued in their motions that the broadcasted statements were expressions of opinion protected by the First Amendment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can on-air statements calling a recently married woman 'ugly' and the 'dog of the week' as part of a radio contest form the basis for claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
Yes, the on-air statements can form the basis for these claims because they may be construed as statements of fact rather than protected opinion. Although expressions of opinion are constitutionally protected, a statement's classification as fact or opinion depends on the perspective of an ordinary listener, considering its verifiability, the language used, and its context. Here, the court found the statements' truth to be questionable, as wedding photos typically capture a person at their best. More importantly, the language constituted 'statements of conclusions,' and the sole context was 'to ridicule someone for the purported amusement of its audience,' distinguishing it from protected forms of commentary like criticism or political debate. Given that the plaintiffs are private figures, they have a more compelling claim for redress. The court also found that the complaint sufficiently alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the defendants either intended to cause such distress or should have realized their conduct involved an unreasonable risk of doing so.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical limits of the First Amendment's 'opinion' defense in defamation and tort law, particularly concerning private figures. The court's decision emphasizes that context is paramount; speech intended purely for ridicule and entertainment, lacking any element of legitimate commentary or public concern, is less likely to receive constitutional protection as opinion. This ruling establishes that media defendants cannot immunize otherwise defamatory factual assertions by framing them as part of a contest or vote. It serves as a key precedent demonstrating how courts differentiate between actionable false statements of fact and protected, but offensive, expressions of opinion.
