Price v. Stossel
620 F.3d 992, 38 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2153, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17671 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement reported as a direct quotation is considered 'false' for the purposes of a defamation claim if it is presented out of context in a way that materially alters the meaning conveyed by the speaker, even if the speaker uttered the exact words.
Facts:
- Dr. Frederick Price, a wealthy televangelist who preaches the 'prosperity gospel,' delivered a sermon.
- In the sermon, Price spoke from the perspective of a hypothetical, wealthy but spiritually unfulfilled person.
- As this hypothetical character, Price stated: 'I live in a 25-room mansion. I have my own $6 million yacht. I have my own private jet, and I have my own helicopter, and I have seven luxury automobiles.'
- American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ('ABC') aired a segment on its '20/20' news program about the lavish lifestyles of televangelists.
- The program broadcast a video clip of Price's statement, introduced by correspondent John Stossel with the words, '[A]nd yet her pastor, Fred Price, boasts that...'
- This presentation made it appear that Price was speaking about and boasting of his own personal possessions.
- After being contacted by Price, ABC broadcast a retraction and apology, acknowledging that the quote had been used out of context and may have misled viewers.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Frederick Price filed a defamation action against American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ('ABC') and others in Los Angeles County Superior Court (a state trial court).
- Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
- After a failed mediation, Price re-filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The New York court granted Defendants' motion for a change of venue, transferring the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Defendants filed a special motion to strike Price's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute.
- The district court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the broadcast statement was 'substantially true' and therefore not false.
- Price, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 broadcasting a public figure's exact words out of context, thereby materially changing their original meaning to suggest the speaker is boasting about his own wealth when he was speaking hypothetically, constitute a 'false' statement for the purposes of a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Circuit Judge
Yes. Broadcasting a public figure's exact words out of context in a way that materially alters their meaning constitutes a 'false' statement for defamation purposes. The proper analysis for determining the falsity of a quotation, as established in Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., is to compare the meaning of the quotation as published with the meaning of the words as the speaker actually uttered them. The district court erred by comparing the statements in the broadcast clip to the reality of Price's wealth and concluding it was 'substantially true.' The correct comparison is between the clip as broadcast (portraying Price boasting about his own assets) and the original sermon (where Price spoke as a hypothetical character). This change in context materially altered the meaning of Price's words, creating a false impression. As Masson noted, 'an exact quotation out of context can distort meaning,' and the fact that a statement is presented as a direct quotation can injure reputation by attributing to the speaker 'a negative personal trait or an attitude the speaker does not hold.'
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and applies the Supreme Court's Masson standard to the medium of television broadcasting. It clarifies that the 'substantial truth' defense in defamation cases involving quotations does not permit a publisher to use someone's exact words if the surrounding context creates a materially different, and damaging, meaning. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for media law, cautioning journalists and editors that editing choices which distort the original intent of a speaker's words can lead to liability for defamation, even without altering the words themselves. This is particularly impactful for video and audio media, where the perceived authenticity of seeing and hearing a person speak can make a decontextualized quote more damaging.
