961 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1992), 88-3925, Jones v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
|Citation:||961 F.2d 1546|
|Party Name:||Arthur JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 05, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
Paul A. Louis, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gregory G. Jones, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, Judge.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal is before us after a remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). See Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos., --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 239, 112 L.Ed.2d 199 (1990). Having reconsidered our decision affirming the district court's judgment in Jones v. American Broadcasting Cos., 694 F.Supp. 1542 (M.D.Fla.1988), we once again affirm.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Milkovich addressed an affirmative defense against a defamation action. Milkovich clarified that merely labeling an allegedly defamatory statement an "opinion" does not insulate that statement against a defamation action. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at ----, 110 S.Ct. at 2705. While the district court in the present case found that certain allegedly defamatory statements represented non-actionable opinions, Jones, 694 F.Supp. at 1552, it also found that, "[t]aken in context and without giving the broadcast any 'tortured' interpretation, ... a reasonable person would not have interpreted the broadcast, in whole or in part, as being defamatory to [appellant]." Id. at...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP