OpenTV, Inc. v. Matal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that speech including epithets, fiery rhetoric, and hyperbole signal advocacy, not that advocacy is protected speech
• explaining that statements published in “editorial formats . . . create the ‘common expectation’ that the communication would ‘represent the viewpoint of [its] author[] and . . . contain considerable hyperbole, speculation, diversified forms of expression and opinion.”
• finding the reference to the plaintiff as “anti-Semitic and anti-American” in a “hyperbole-laden opinion piece” not to be actionable
• “dictum, i.e., a statement not essential to the holding, is not the law of the case”
• fact that author “[was] not a news writer for the periodical and [did] not purport to have undertaken a ‘thorough investigation’ or to have ‘deliberated] over the statements’ supported conclusion that statements were nonactionable opinion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).