The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"After Edokobi's Employees Left, Smith Cast 'Evil Curses' upon Edokobi's Life and Business"—But Not Libelous Ones
More usefully, the case is a reminder that insults and other expressions of opinion aren't libelous.
From Edokobi v. Smith, decided yesterday by the Appellate Court of Maryland (Judges Kathryn Grill Graeff, Kevin Arthur, and James Eyler):
In the light most favorable to Edokobi, the complaint alleged, generally, three claims: first, during an argument in front of two of Edokobi's employees about payment for work Smith had performed, Smith called Edokobi "a piece of garbage." Second, after Edokobi's employees left, Smith cast "evil curses" upon Edokobi's life and business. And third, in private text messages between the parties, Smith called Edokobi "stupid," "evil," and "foolish," and threatened to remove Edokobi's industrial equipment from his warehouse.
Edokobi's second and third claims cannot satisfy the [publication] element of defamation. Even if the alleged statements were defamatory, they were not made to, or in front of, a third person….
Although [the first] statement was made in front of third persons, as a matter of law, it was not defamatory. "A defamatory statement is one [that] tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or from associating or dealing with, that person." "The test is whether the words, taken in their common and ordinary meaning, in the sense in which they are generally used, are capable of defamatory construction."
What is more, "statements that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts" cannot be defamatory. For example, "rhetorical statements employing loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language[,]" unless coupled with verifiably false statements of fact, as a matter of law, are not defamatory….
To be sure, … a statement in the form of an opinion may still be actionable "if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion." A statement does not rise to the level of defamation, however, "simply because the subject of the [statement] finds [it] annoying, offensive, or embarrassing." See also, e.g., Meier v. Novak, 338 N.W.2d 631, 635 (N.D. 1983) (holding that it is not defamatory to call someone an "asshole"); Cowan v. Time Inc., 245 N.Y.S.2d 723, 725–26 (1963) (holding that it is not defamatory to call someone an "idiot"). "The common law has always differentiated sharply between genuinely defamatory communications [and] obscenities, vulgarities, insults, epithets, name-calling, [or] other verbal abuse." "No matter how obnoxious, insulting, or tasteless such name-calling [may be], it is regarded as a part of life for which the law of defamation affords no remedy." So too here.
Smith's statement calling Edokobi "a piece of garbage" is not capable of defamatory construction. Taken in their common and ordinary meaning, these words can be understood only as a metaphor through which the speaker—Smith—is expressing an unfavorable opinion of the subject—Edokobi. The statement cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts and, by itself, does not imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. It is not a statement that "tends to expose [the subject] to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or from associating or dealing with, that person."
Put simply: Edokobi may have been insulted by Smith's statement, but, as a matter of law, he was not defamed by it. Consequently, Edokobi's complaint failed to state a claim for defamation, and the circuit court did not err in dismissing it.
