## Facts

- *Sports Illustrated*, published by Time, Inc., ran a 1968 “Sportsman of the Year” feature on Bill Russell, written by George Plimpton.
- The article included remarks attributed to Celtics coach Arnold “Red” Auerbach describing Russell’s impact on opponents, including former NBA player Neil Johnston.
- The article stated, in substance, that Russell “destroyed” Johnston psychologically; that repeated blocks caused Johnston to shoot farther from the basket; and that the result became “ludicrous,” drawing laughter from the bench.
- Johnston had been a prominent professional basketball player; by publication he had retired and worked as an assistant college basketball coach.
- Johnston sued for libel, alleging the publication harmed him in his profession as a basketball coach.
- After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment; the district court denied both motions.
- The parties pursued interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), resulting in cross-appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Johnston was a public figure and whether the article addressed a matter of legitimate public interest, triggering heightened First Amendment protection.
2. Whether the record contained evidence that Time, Inc. published the challenged statements with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
3. Whether the challenged language was actionable factual defamation or nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole/opinion common to sports commentary.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Time, Inc.’s summary judgment motion and directed entry of summary judgment for Time, Inc.
- The court held Johnston was a public figure and the article concerned a matter of legitimate public interest.
- The court held Johnston could not recover absent proof of actual malice and found no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find actual malice.
- The court treated the challenged statements as protected sports hyperbole and evaluative commentary rather than defamatory factual assertions.
- The court dismissed Johnston’s cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff who is a public figure suing over speech on a matter of legitimate public interest must prove actual malice to recover for defamation.
- Actual malice requires proof the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth; absence of record evidence warrants summary judgment.
- Colorful, figurative language and rhetorical exaggeration in sports reporting about public figures is generally protected, particularly when it conveys evaluative judgment rather than verifiable factual claims.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that commentary on a well-known athlete’s performance in a prominent sports feature was protected speech: Johnston was a public figure, the subject was newsworthy, the statements were nonliteral sports hyperbole, and the record lacked evidence of actual malice, requiring judgment for the publisher as a matter of law.


Time, Inc. v. Johnston, 448 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1971)