Campos v. Jensen

The proper analysis under Neumann requires an examination of individual statements within the context of the review as a whole, a context which demonstrated in that instance that the statements were “not provably false” but, rather, statements of opinion or speculation. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706 (2016).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s special motion to strike under ORS 31.150. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court's conclusion that, under Neumann, none of the identified statements were "actionable." On appeal, Plaintiff contended that at least some of the sentences in Defendant’s three online statements imply assertions of "objective facts," so as to render the First Amendment protection for opinions inapplicable. In response, Defendant argued that the trial court correctly understood Neumann to require it to view each statement as a whole within its surrounding context and that, so viewed, the trial court rightly determined that none of Defendant’s words were "actionable." The proper analysis under Neumann requires an examination of individual statements within the context of the review as a whole, a context which demonstrated in that instance that the statements were “not provably false” but, rather, statements of opinion or speculation. Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706 (2016). The Court held that the trial court correctly concluded that the three challenged statements were "actionable" because they gave the impression of a strongly held opinion or viewpoint and, as such, would not allow a reasonable factfinder to find that any of the statements communicated an assertion of "objective fact."

Affirmed.