## Facts

- Jonathon Keith Idema and Counterr Group, Inc., a police and military training organization led by Idema, sued the Town of Red Hook in New York state court.
- A daily newspaper published a January 29, 1999 story about that lawsuit with the headline “Militant Sues Red Hook,” describing Idema and Counterr as “militant.”
- The newspaper circulated in multiple New York counties and reached tens of thousands of readers.
- Idema demanded a retraction and written apology, asserting that “militant” implied communist affiliation or advocacy of overthrowing the U.S. government by force.
- The publisher declined to retract, stating the reporting was fair.
- Plaintiffs filed a federal civil action for libel/defamation against the publisher, the newspaper, editors, the reporter, and related corporate entities.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether describing plaintiffs as “militant” in a newspaper headline and article is a provably false statement of fact capable of defamatory meaning under New York law.
2. Whether, in context, the term “militant” could reasonably be understood to assert that plaintiffs were communists or advocates of violent overthrow.
3. Whether the challenged language constitutes non-actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole requiring dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint in full.
- The court held that “militant,” as used, was a loose, value-laden characterization rather than a verifiable factual assertion.
- The court found the publication was not reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs’ asserted defamatory meanings.
- Because the statement was non-defamatory as a matter of law and protected as opinion/characterization, the pleadings failed at the threshold.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation claim requires, at minimum, a false statement of fact that is capable of a defamatory meaning as understood by a reasonable reader in context.
- Courts decide as a threshold matter whether challenged language is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning and whether it states fact or protected opinion/hyperbole.
- Evaluative descriptors with elastic meanings, lacking objective truth-testing, are generally treated as non-actionable opinion when the context signals characterization rather than specific factual allegations.
- Plaintiffs cannot base liability on strained interpretations; defamation turns on reasonable audience understanding, not a plaintiff’s subjective reading.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the defamation action because calling plaintiffs “militant” in reporting about their lawsuit was an imprecise, opinion-based characterization that, in context, did not communicate a specific defamatory fact such as communist affiliation or advocacy of violent overthrow.


Idema v. Wager, 120 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)