Supreme Court rules opinion can constitute defamation if based on false facts

The Supreme Court ruled that expressing an opinion can constitute defamation if the statement implicitly asserts underlying facts that damage a person's social reputation.

Judges must evaluate the wording, context and social background to determine whether a statement presents facts or merely an opinion. The court specified that while pure opinions are not defamatory, remarks functioning as insulting personal attacks may constitute a separate unlawful act. This determination relies on how an average reader perceives the publication's overall impression rather than isolated phrases.

The court affirmed that corporations are subjects of personality rights and can claim damages when their social reputation or credit is harmed within the scope of their business objectives. A victim does not need to be explicitly named if surrounding circumstances allow reasonable people to identify the specific individual or entity targeted.

Family members may seek damages when expressions insult the dead or spread falsehoods about them, a right extending beyond the spouses, descendants, and siblings defined in media laws. The court stated that eligibility depends on the specific relationship and the survivor's grief, requiring a case-by-case assessment of whether the expression infringed upon their respect for the deceased.

Plaintiffs claiming defamation through published facts must prove those facts are false. However, defendants arguing their statements served the public interest must prove they had reasonable grounds to believe the content was true, demonstrating they conducted adequate investigations supported by objective data.