## Facts

- Dan E. Moldea, an investigative journalist, authored *Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football*, a nonfiction book about organized crime and professional football.
- The *New York Times Book Review* published a review criticizing the book as containing “too much sloppy journalism” and offered examples the reviewer viewed as misleading, overstated, or insufficiently supported.
- Moldea alleged the review defamed him by conveying false statements that damaged his professional competence and integrity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the New York Times Company, reasoning the review was nonactionable opinion.
- A D.C. Circuit panel initially reversed, concluding some characterizations could be actionable factual assertions, but on rehearing the panel vacated that decision and reconsidered the review in full context.

## Issues

1. Whether statements in a literary book review—including “too much sloppy journalism” and cited examples—would be understood by a reasonable reader as provably false assertions of fact or as protected evaluative opinion.
2. Whether, applying First Amendment limits on defamation liability, the publisher was entitled to summary judgment because the challenged statements were nonactionable in context.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit, on rehearing, vacated its earlier opinion and affirmed the district court.
- The court held the review, read as a whole and in its setting as a book review, conveyed evaluative judgments rather than actionable factual assertions.
- The court concluded the challenged language was the type of loose, value-laden criticism expected in literary commentary and did not reasonably imply that Moldea fabricated facts.
- Summary judgment for the New York Times Company was affirmed because the statements were constitutionally protected and not actionable as defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Whether language is actionable in defamation turns on how a reasonable reader would interpret the statement in its full context, including the publication’s genre, tone, and placement.
- Under First Amendment doctrine after *Milkovich*, labeling a statement as “opinion” does not immunize it if it implies a provably false factual assertion; however, rhetorical, figurative, and evaluative criticism that cannot fairly be read as stating actual facts is protected.
- Book reviews are a context in which audiences expect subjective assessment, and courts should be cautious about converting sharp criticism into defamation claims that could chill commentary on matters of public concern.
- Criticism that reflects disagreement over interpretation, emphasis, sourcing quality, or the significance of disclosed material is generally nonactionable absent a clear implication of specific false facts (e.g., fabrication).

## Conclusion

The court held that, in the context of a literary book review, the reviewer’s charge of “too much sloppy journalism” and related criticisms were protected evaluative opinion rather than provably false factual assertions, so the publisher was entitled to summary judgment on the defamation claim.


Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1994)