Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism

In a defamation claim, meaning is assessed by the impression conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader, reading the publication as a whole and in context. The court should avoid over-analysis. Context, including relevant hyperlinks in an online article, may materially affect whether words convey fact or opinion. A defamatory description may remain opinion even where its basis is indirectly indicated or the comment is described as bare, if the publication presents it as the author’s deduction or value judgment. Separate factual imputations must nevertheless be treated as allegations of fact where the publication conveys verifiable assertions, such as previous criminal convictions.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning five articles published by the defendant on its website. The trial was confined to preliminary issues of meaning and whether the imputations were statements of fact or expressions of opinion.

The claimant alleged that all five articles conveyed that he was a notorious anti-Semite and that the first article additionally alleged dishonesty, criminal drug abuse and false statements to the Charity Commission. The defendant contended that the anti-Semitism allegations and allegations of lying were expressions of opinion, while allegations of previous convictions were factual. The central issues were the natural and ordinary meanings of the articles and the fact or opinion characterisation of those meanings.

1. Preliminary issues determined. The First Article conveyed that the claimant was anti-Semitic, had lied about the International Definition of Anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, had lied to the Charity Commission about the defendant, and had committed several criminal offences including dishonesty, vandalism and drug possession. The Second to Fifth Articles conveyed that the claimant was anti-Semitic.
2. Meaning was assessed by reading each article once, separately, from the perspective of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader. The court had to consider each publication as a whole and in context, while avoiding an over-analytical approach that allowed legal submissions to displace the reader’s immediate impression.
3. The fact that an article contained factual points did not prevent the publication overall from being opinion. The anti-Semitism allegations were presented as the author’s criticism, deduction or value judgment. Relevant context included the identified subject of criticism, the stated basis for the criticism, hyperlinks, and the public dispute about the definition of anti-Semitism.
4. The allegations that the claimant had lied were opinions because the articles identified the statements said to be lies, enabling the reader to understand them as the author’s conclusions rather than bare allegations. By contrast, the allegations of previous convictions were clear allegations of fact.
5. The proposed Second Meaning combined separate imputations and was confusing in form, but its constituent allegations were sufficiently clear to determine without requiring re-pleading. All meanings found were defamatory at common law. The court expressly left issues under Defamation Act 2013, s 1, undetermined.
6. The judge also emphasised the desirability of determining meaning and fact or opinion at an early stage, so that unnecessary pleading and litigation could be avoided.