Neal Horsley v. Geraldo Rivera
2002 WL 1058151, 292 F.3d 695 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made during a heated, emotional public debate that use accusatory language are protected by the First Amendment as non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole if the context makes it clear to a reasonable observer that the statement is an expression of outrage or opinion, not a literal assertion of fact.
Facts:
- Neal Horsley, an anti-abortion activist, operated a website that listed the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions.
- In October 1998, Dr. Bernard Slepian, an abortion provider, was murdered in his home.
- Following the murder, Horsley added Dr. Slepian's name to his website's list and struck a line through it.
- Four days later, on October 27, 1998, Horsley voluntarily appeared on a live television program, 'Upfront Tonight,' hosted by Geraldo Rivera.
- During a contentious and emotional debate on the program, Rivera stated to Horsley, 'You are an accomplice to homicide, Mr. Horsley.'
- Horsley immediately retorted, 'You are, too... You’re a collaborator just like I am, if that’s true.'
- After the interview, Horsley began receiving threatening messages, including death threats.
Procedural Posture:
- Neal Horsley (plaintiff) filed a suit for libel and slander against Geraldo Rivera (defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- Rivera moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing his statement was constitutionally protected speech.
- The district court denied Rivera's motion.
- Rivera then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied, but the court granted his request for certification for an interlocutory appeal.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted Rivera's (appellant) petition to hear the appeal before the conclusion of the trial, with Horsley as the appellee.
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 calling someone an 'accomplice to homicide' during a heated television debate on a controversial public issue constitute actionable defamation, or is it protected rhetorical hyperbole under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall
No. Calling someone an 'accomplice to homicide' in this context is not actionable defamation because it is protected rhetorical hyperbole. The court reasoned that in determining whether a statement is defamatory, it must be analyzed in the context in which it was made. Here, Rivera's statement occurred during a live, emotional debate on a highly controversial public issue. A reasonable viewer would have understood the comment not as a literal assertion that Horsley committed a felony, but as a figurative expression of Rivera's belief that Horsley was morally culpable for the doctor's death. The court found it particularly significant that Horsley's own immediate retort ('You are, too...') demonstrated that he understood Rivera was speaking figuratively, not literally. Citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the court affirmed that the First Amendment protects 'rhetorical hyperbole' that 'cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts' to ensure that public debate is not chilled for lack of 'imaginative expression.'
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that context is paramount in defamation law, especially concerning debates on public issues. The decision solidifies the 'rhetorical hyperbole' defense, showing that even language that mirrors a specific criminal accusation can be deemed non-actionable opinion if the surrounding circumstances—such as the forum, the tenor of the conversation, and the reactions of the participants—signal to a reasonable observer that the statement is figurative rather than factual. This provides significant protection for commentators, journalists, and participants in public discourse, allowing for 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate on controversial topics without fear of defamation liability for using strong, exaggerated, or hyperbolic language to express outrage or opinion.
