ÿWPCw> @1Ä;}öÆÂÎÿ]L><"5êõ’‚³jšÊš{ ¼Îú¾ 0¯sÑ|-؉9#ïü%È’!Ñ<€±´|©TS'’6L7:§ðØ£¢ Áâ 3{´J:ᾉ'{ƒ×ó=^Hà!ǃcÀ•a’ qØæ-Š{î´/’"Ø*®©ùá5~“Hßáê¨\܇K‚è$Ì—+ã I{¿ä­•ï B婿?Ö6ëã>§˜¢uØ Ú}®é#}à(R‚Â6¤!–K0Ÿ4Ö…|&²àŠômÈ:ÃŒ£ ÞNyóän=³GpÏ$¢<¶3éePóŸ×缤ñ ]QWK}°´¨goØÖƒ+•ƤÆw“vÂ陼ÌV8sªIÁ{àrUý|_àâ| s¿ _#Ñ”0$újP9ìï6ibÌøÃ/@ä‘£•‚þÅ#—Œ—~|;Š2û^šU@ÄñÌ¿êôèxå¡=ˆ\Í=?yùõu¹a­äð¢~J.TáÞá‹•Ó °£eL±|G~mèS¤DÚçr4³T„FQ¦ã¸ŽâßG3B[lÿ©[Wc¾¥wnɨ³ ÕЄ; *.À­¶¿;K˜8³[ $¨ ZŽO†YP*ûÆH 0‰ð 0ƒy 0vü 0vr 0¥è 0‰ 0Ü 0ïò 0±á 0’ 0” 0)© 0<Ò 0N 0a\ 0Ú½ 0¯— 0¯F 0Îõ 0Çà 0ÆŠ 0äP 0®4 0®âU: %ʚР0zj 0¹ä  0=® 0Fë 0P1 1“ 0® 1 0·Ç –~! 0C%EW% 1gY%U}LÀ%` & 0Cl&`¯& 0C'ÝR' 0 v/(w¥(À*«Ü+Û‡-¿b/!8\98•8ª8\Â8 1·9Õ9nTå9 B9;V; 0(V; 1m~;ë;w@þ<4>=R= mT= k=V1 Pè8Document[8]Document Styleà0..àà8` ..` àÌÌÛ  ÛV$8Document[4]Document Styleà..àò òòò.óó€€ó óÛ  ÛV ]ñ8Document[6]Document Styleà8..àÌÌÛ  ÛV ½ð8Document[5]Document Styleà0..àÌÌÛ  ÛV:ä8Document[2]Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌó óóóV1 °ç8Document[7]Document Styleà0..àà0` ..` àÌÌÛ  Ûz` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersàÐ.. àÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€ˆà°..°àà0..àÌÌzs BÇ:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..ààÐ` ..øàÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0` ..` àÌÌVJ8Document[3]Document StyleÌà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌó óz† Çû:Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` ààи ..P àÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€ˆà` ..` àà0¸ ..¸ àÌÌz™ &ò:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ ààÐ..¨ àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€ˆà¸ ..¸ àà0..àÌÌz­ {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààÐh..ˆàÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0h..hàÌÌzÀ Ä´:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÐÀ..ààÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€ˆàh..hàà0À..ÀàÌÌzÒ Ž:Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..ÀààÐ..°àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€ˆàÀ..Ààà0..àÌÌzå :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersà..àà` ..` àภ..¸ àà..ààh..hààÀ..Ààà..ààÐp..àÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€ˆà..àà0p..pàÌÌVcÒ08Document[1]Document StyleÌÔ  Ôà@ì..^àòòò òÔ  ÔÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔˆÌÌóóó ól= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(1)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól= …:Technical[6]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô(a)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól:%ÊÀ:Technical[2]Technical Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2ÔA.Ô3  Ô€òòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔóóÌÌà..àó ól7!›:Technical[3]Technical Document StyleÌò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ô1.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌà..àó ól6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Styleò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÌà..àó ólE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document StyleÌòòò òÔ  ÔÛ  ÛÔ2ÔI.Ô3  Ô€Ô  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÌÌóóà..àó ól<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôi)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ól<a…:Technical[8]Technical Document Styleà..àò òÛ  ÛÔ2Ôa)Ô3  Ô€.€€ó ó<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX' Ç  1 2  0 .   R& ÿÿ8BibliogrphyBibliographyà0..àà°..°àÌÌfEÿÿ2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleÓ€ÓÈÓ(€ "   (ÓØØ !(ÿÿ$˜˜Ìà0 àà à(ÿÿ$™™à0 àà0 àà à((ÿÿ$ššà0 àà0 àà0 àà à  ÿÿA_ekqw‡DocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jDÿÿ4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleÓ(€ $ (ÓØØ ÿÿCuy±ÉåTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?çt2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperÓÈÓÑ °ÑÑè°ÑÖ€&ÿÿÖ ŒÝ ƒ'(ÝÝ  ÝÔ€RŸXXXÔÓÈÓÒX°ÒÒ°°ÒÓÿÿÀ°œXÓß?€>('ü°ø*–dEü°ø*?ßß?€>('°ø*–dE°ø*?ßÌÌàHHÀà1ˆÌÌàHHÀà2ˆÌÌàHHÀà3ˆÌÌàHHÀà4ˆÌÌàHHÀà5ˆÌÌàHHÀà6ˆÌÌàHHÀà7ˆÌÌàHHÀà8ˆÌÌàHHÀà9ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà10ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà11ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà12ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà13ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà14ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà15ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà16ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà17ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà18ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà19ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà20ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà21ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà22ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà23ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà24ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà25ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà26ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà27ˆÌÌàÐÐÀà28Ô  à.À+Ô(2$¨¨Ý ƒ@!ÝÝ  Ý$ÿÿ35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a)(1)(a)i) )‚&_â `4CG TimesItalicScalable VÝ ƒ,'ÝÝ  Ý›Ó  Óà@ÀÀ(ìà„€Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú€„(2$§§Ý ƒ@!ÝÝ  Ý VÝ ƒ,'ÝÝ  Ý›Ó  Óà@ÀÀ(ìà„€Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú€„(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó ÓÝ ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€Apparently,€there€had€been€a€reconciliation,€of€sorts,Ð ° Ðbetween€the€emancipated€Dawn€and€her€mother.(-!2XF$¤¤Ý ƒ@!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó mÝ ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€Although€appellants'€complaint€stated€that€appellee€statedÐ ° Ðthat€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€a€battered€spouse,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£,€DawnÏ¢Hubbard£,€and€appellee€all€testified€that€appellee€indicated€thatÏshe€thought€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€an€emotionally€abused€spouse. ¶Ý ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€The€First€Amendment€provides:€"Congress€shall€make€no€lawÐ ° Ðrespecting€an€establishment€of€religion,€or€prohibiting€the€freeÏexercise€thereof;€or€abridging€the€freedom€of€speech,€or€of€theÏpress;€or€the€right€of€the€people€peaceably€to€assemble,€and€toÏpetition€the€Government€for€a€redress€of€grievances."€€U.S.ÏConst.€amend€I. ¡Ý ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€Article€Forty€of€the€Declaration€of€Rights€provides:€Ð ° Ð"That€the€liberty€of€the€press€ought€to€be€inviolably€preserved;Ïthat€every€citizen€of€the€State€ought€to€be€allowed€to€speak,Ïwrite€and€publish€his€sentiments€on€all€subjects,€being€responsi…¼ble€for€the€abuse€of€that€privilege."€€Md.€Const.€art.€40. ÑÝ ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€Article€Nineteen€of€the€Declaration€of€Rights€provides:Ð ° Ð"That€every€man,€for€any€injury€done€to€him€in€his€person€orÏproperty,€ought€to€have€remedy€by€the€course€of€the€Law€of€theÏland,€and€ought€to€have€justice€and€right,€freely€without€sale,Ïfully€without€any€denial,€and€speedily€without€delay,€accordingÏto€the€Law€of€the€land."€€Md.€Const.€art.€19. µÝ ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›Ó  Ó€We€are€not€altogether€persuaded€that€alleging€one€is€anÐ ° Ðemotional€abuser€is€the€type€of€statement€that€would€"expose€aÏperson€to€public€scorn,€hatred,€contempt€or€ridicule,€therebyÏdiscouraging€others€in€the€community€from€having€a€good€opinionÏof,€or€from€associating€or€dealing€with,€that€person."€€Ô€*XˆXXXÔ¢Batson£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,Ð Ð  Ð325€Md.€at€722„23.€€We€find€it€very€difficult€to€ascertain€whatÏtype€or€degree€of€conduct€constitutes€emotional€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔabuseÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ.€€Many€humanÐ „ Ô Ðcontacts€are€of€an€emotional€nature€ð"ð€love,€hate,€concern,Ð p À Ðworry;€the€list€is€extensive.€€When€they€are€of€an€impermissibleÏnature,€so€as€to€constitute€abuse,€might,€in€many€instances,€beÏespecially€difficult€to€determine.€€There€are€no€sharp€delinea…¼tions,€such€as€usually€exist€in€cases€of€physical€or€sexualÏabuse,€in€emotional€abuse€situations.€€The€existence€or€nonexisƒ¼tence€of€emotional€abuse€may€be€clear€at€either€end€of€theÏprocesses€of€personal€interac‚tions€between€people,€but,€as€theÏpersonal€interactions€leave€the€good€or€bad€extremes€of€conduct,Ïmuch€of€the€area€between€is€of€an€opaque€or€murky€nature.€€WeÏnote€that€even€professionals€in€the€psychiat‚ric€community€have€aÏdifficult€time€ascertaining€what€type€or€degree€of€conduct€risesÐ X  Ðto€the€level€of€emotional€abuse.€€Dr.€Paul€R.€¢McHugh£,€M.D.,€theÏPsychia‚trist„in„Chief€at€Johns€Hopkins€Hospital,€stated€in€hisÏaffidavit:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌEmotional€abuse€is€not€a€diagnosis€ð"ð€it€isÐ `  Ðmerely€an€opinion€or€an€assessment.€€There€isÏno€listing€for€emotional€abuse€or€excessiveÏemotional€coercion€or€pressure€in€theÏDiagnos‚tic€and€Statistical€Manual€of€MentalÏDisorders€„IV€(DSM„IV).€€There€are€no€definedÏset€of€clinically€signif‚icant€behavioral€orÏpsycho‚logical€syndromes€or€patterns€thatÏoccur€in€an€individual€that€is€associatedÏwith€subjection€to€excessive€emo‚tional€pres…¼sure,€emotional€coercion,€or,€as€a€lay„personÏmight€state,€emotional€abuse.€ Ö€7Ö RÝ ƒ,'ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà@ì..„à„€Ú  ÚÚ  Ú€„ˆ Ñ  Ñ Ö€:Ö RÝ ƒ,'ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà@ì..„à„€Ú  ÚÚ  Ú€„ˆ  ÿÿCƒ‰•›£«±Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)#|x[«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@)‚&_â `4CG TimesItalicScalableXXu‚&_â xì$&7ûXX d($¡¡# e37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) Ý ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€There€were€additional€facts€brought€out€below€that€DawnÐ ° Ðhad€suffered€an€eating€disorder,€that€criminal€trespass€chargesÏœwere›€filed€by€appellants€against€Dawn,€etc. QRESDTUVEWXZD[@1y 60 Ö„ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ0XF$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›€There€were€additional€facts€brought€out€below€that€DawnÐ ° Ðhad€suffered€an€eating€disorder,€that€criminal€trespass€chargesÏfiled€by€appellants€against€Dawn,€etc.Ý ƒ@!ÝÝ  Ý›Ó  Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  à€€€REPORTEDÌÌØØÓC€ ) ÿÿ$#ACÓÒ€°ÒÒ,°Òà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à€€€àH¬¬3ðàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóˆÐ @ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à€€€àH\\=ðàòòOF€MARYLANDóóˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à€€€àHÔÔ>ðà€No.€1871ˆÐ ` ° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à€€€àH@@8ðàSEPTEMBER€TERM,€1996ˆÐ ð @ ÐÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ÌÌ4xàMICHAEL€A.€¢PEROUTKA£€Ô€*X‡“XXXÔet€uxÔ€XŒXX*X‡“Ô.ˆÐ 0€  ÐÌÌÌà@@xàv.ˆÌÌÌà@xxAxàˆÌà@ll;xàMARSHA€¢STRENG£ˆà 8" àÐ ˜è ÐÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌà Ø à€à 0 àÐ Ø(  Ðà Ø àà 0 à¢Moylan£,Ìà Ø àà 0 à¢Cathell£,Ìà Ø àà 0 àBell,€Rosalyn€B.,Ìà Ø àà 0 à€€(retired,€speciallyÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ à€€assigned),Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àÌ€à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à à€JJ.Ð P# ' ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì___________________________________ÌÌà@ØØ5xà€€Opinion€by€¢Cathell£,€J.ˆÌÌ___________________________________ÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€œFiled:ñ[ñJune€30,€1997ñ[ñ›ÌÒ°€ÒÒ°,ÒÓÓÐ x-È(4 ÐÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÖ€+ÿÿÖÑ  ÑÌÖ€-+ÈÖÌÌà  àMichael€A.€and€Diane€M.€¢Peroutka£€appeal€from€the€granting€ofÏa€Motion€of€Summary€Judgment€in€favor€of€Marsha€¢Streng£,€appellee,Ïby€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€County.€€This€appeal€involves€anÏalleged€defamatory€statement€made€by€appellee€to€appellant€Diane€M.Ï¢Peroutka£€and€her€daughter.€€Appellants€present€one€question€onÏappeal:€€"Did€the€circuit€court€err€when€it€granted€[appellee's]ÏMotion€for€Summary€Judgment."€€We€shall€affirm.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà@ÐÐ&ìàò òThe€Factsó óˆÐ h Ðà  àPrior€to€her€marriage€to€Michael€M.€¢Peroutka£,€Diane€M.Ï¢Peroutka£€was€married€to€Scott€¢Hubbard£,€and€two€children€resultedÏfrom€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£'s€first€marriage:€€Dawn€M.€¢Hubbard£€and€Holly€C.Ï¢Hubbard£.€€In€roughly€1978,€while€the€children€were€still€veryÏyoung,€Mr.€¢Hubbard£€died€of€leukemia.€€In€August€of€1985,€Diane€M.Ï‚¢Peroutka£€and€Michael€A.€¢Peroutka£€were€married.Ìà  àSometime€in€1989,€when€Dawn€was€approximately€fourteen€yearsÏold,€she€began€believing€that€she€had€been€sexually€abused€by€Mr.Ï¢Peroutka£€and€that€she€had€"repressed"€all€memory€of€those€events.€ÏThese€memories€were€allegedly€triggered€by€Dawn's€discussions€withÏher€deceased€father's€sister,€Marie€¢Hubbard£,€and€the€book€Ô€*XW¿XXX&¬ÔCourage€toÐ H&˜!+ ÐHealÔ€X&¬XX*XW¿Ô.€€Dawn€never€discussed€these€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€withÐ ((x#- Ðher€family€or€anyone€other€than€Marie€¢Hubbard£€until€1992.Ìà  àIn€the€early€part€of€1992,€Dawn€discussed,€with€members€of€aÏyouth€group€and€a€high€school€basketball€coach,€the€alleged€sexualÐ (-x(3  Ðabuse€by€Mr.€¢Peroutka£.€€At€that€time,€Dawn€was€taken€to€the€ChildÏAdvocacy€Center€and,€ultimately,€€the€Baltimore€County€DepartmentÏof€Social€Services€(¢BCDSS£).€€The€¢BCDSS£€conducted€an€investigationÏinto€the€alleged€abuse€and€found€that€Dawn's€claims€were€unsubstanƒ¼tiated.€€Ìà  àThis,€however,€did€not€end€Dawn's€relations€with€the€¢BCDSS£.€ÏDue€to€these€allegations€of€abuse,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€decided€to€waiveÏher€rights€as€a€parent€and€have€Dawn€placed€with€the€¢BCDSS£.€€In€MayÏof€1992,€Dawn€was€adjudicated€a€child€in€need€of€assistance€and€wasÏplaced€in€the€custody€of€the€State.€€At€that€time,€appellee€wasÏDawn's€social€worker.€€A€few€months€later,€Holly,€Dawn's€youngerÏsister,€was€also€placed€with€the€¢BCDSS£.€€Appellee€was€also€Holly'sÏsocial€worker.Ìà  àSometime€in€March€or€April€of€1993,€Dawn€began€to€realize€thatÏthe€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€were€untrue.€€After€working€withÏDr.€¢McHugh£,€Dawn€realized€that€she€had€never€been€abused€by€Mr.Ï¢Peroutka£.€€On€6€April€1994,€the€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€wereÏ"ruled€out"€by€the€¢BCDSS£.Ìà  àDespite€the€false€allegations€of€child€abuse,€Dawn€andÏappellee€continued€to€communicate.€In€September€of€1994,€DawnÏreceived€a€package€from€appellee€that€contained€informationÏregarding€¢spousal£€abuse.€€At€that€time,€Dawn€was€a€psychology€majorÏin€her€sophomore€year€of€college.€€A€"cover€letter"€sent€along€withÏthe€materials€stated:€"I€thought€you€might€find€some€of€thisÏinteresting€ð"ð€it€also€might€be€helpful€in€psychology€class€ð"ðÐ À+€%0 Ðremember€`battering'€doesn't€have€to€be€physical€ð"ð€emotional€abuseÐ P-'2 Ðcan€be€just€as€devastating."€€It€is€important€to€note€thatÏapparently€nowhere€in€this€cover€letter€or€the€material€was€itÏasserted€by€appellee€that€appellant€was€"emotionally€abused."€€ItÏwas,€by€the€terms€of€the€cover€letter,€forwarded€for€Dawn'sÏinterest.ñXñœ×ƒB×ñXññXñ׃G×ñXñÝ ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР€ @ Ðà  àDawn€showed€the€materials€sent€by€appellee€to€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€onÏ12€January€1995.׃/è×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€that€same€day,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€confrontedÐ  `  Ðappellee€regarding€the€materials.€€Appellee€met€with€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£Ïand€Dawn€in€a€¢BCDSS£€meeting€room.€€At€that€meeting,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£Ïrepeatedly€demanded€to€know€whether€appellee€thought€she€was€anÏemotionally€abused€spouse.€€Appellee€eventually€responded€that€sheÏthought€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€an€emotionally€abused€spouse.€€AppelleeÏapparently€based€her€opinion€on€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£'s€relationship€withÏher€daughters.€€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€told€appellee€that€she€was€notÏemotionally€abused.€€Appellee€responded,€"that's€good"€and€left€theÏroom.€€On€the€following€day,€appellee€called€Dawn€to€apologize€forÏleaving€the€room€in€an€abrupt€manner.€€During€that€conversation,Ïappellee€again€expressed€her€opinion€to€Dawn€that€she€thought€Mrs.Ï¢Peroutka£€was€an€emotionally€abused€spouse.€€Dawn€subsequentlyÏrepublished€appellee's€statement€to€her€sister€Holly.Ìà  àAppellants€filed€suit€against€appellee€on€19€October€1995.€ÏThe€complaint€alleged,€in€respect€to€Mr.€¢Peroutka£,€that€appel‚lee'sÐ 'Ð * Ð"defamation€of€[him],€consisted€of€her€making,€with€malice,€a€falseÏdefamatory€statement€that€[he]€abused€his€spouse."€€Similarly,€theÏcomplaint€alleged,€in€respect€to€Mrs.€Peroutka,€that€appellee'sÏ"defamation€of€[her]€consisted€of€[appellee]€making,€with€malice,Ïa€false€defamatory€statement€that€[she]€was€a€battered€spouse."€€¼à  àAppellee€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€on€9€SeptemberÏ1996.€€A€hearing€on€that€motion€was€held€on€16€October€1996.€€AtÏthat€hearing,€the€trial€court€held:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àThe€issue€in€this€case€is€whether,€and€IÏwould€find€as€a€matter€of€law,€I€have€noÏdifficulty€in€finding€as€a€matter€of€law€thatÏthis€statement€is€not€in€the€least€bit€defamaƒ¼tory€to€Mrs.€Peroutka.€€The€question€is,€isÏthe€statement€defamatory€to€Mr.€Peroutka?€ÏCould€it€be,€is€it€in€this€case€defamation?ÌÌà ¸ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€question€is,€is€the€statement€made€byÏMiss€Streng€at€the€specific€request€of€Mrs.ÏPeroutka€made€to€Mrs.€Peroutka€and€her€daughƒ¼ter,€who€come€to€Mrs.€Streng's€office€and€whoÏare€inviting€her€to€make,€give€her€opin‚ion,Ïcan€that€be€construed€as€defamation€to€Mr.Ï[Peroutka]?ÌÌà ¸ à.€.€.€.ÌÌà ¸ à.€.€.€In€my€view€it€is€not€defamatory.€ÏThe€statement€is€not€defamation.€€It's€anÏopinion.€€It's€an€opinion€given€at€the€specifƒ¼ic€request€to€give€an€opinion.€€That€cannotÏconstitute€defamation.€€And€it's€clear€fromÏthe€authorities,€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔPotomac›€Valve€&€Fitting€Incorporated€vs.Ð H& ) ÐCrawford€Fitting€œCompanyÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€829€F.2d€1280€[(1987)],Ð 4'ô * Ðthat€an€opinion€cannot€constitute€actionableÏdefamation.€€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔAdler›€vs.€American€Standard€œCorporationÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€538Ð è(¨", ÐFed.€Supplement€572€[(1982),]€could€also€beÏstated€as€authority.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€my€view€the€statement€made€by€MissÏStreng€is€an€opinion.€€Even€if€the€court€wereÏincorrect€in€stating€that€the€statement€was€anÐ ¼-|'2 Ðopinion,€the€court€would€have€little€difficulƒ¼ty€in€establishing€the€statement,€if€it€is€notÏan€opinion,€if€it€is€defamation,€which€IÏreally€don't€think€it€is,€if€however€it€wereÏdefamation€I€would€rule€as€a€matter€of€lawÏthat€the€defamation€is€defamation€per€¢quod£€.Ì.€.€.ÌÌà ¸ àOther€facts€are€necessary€to€understandÏthe€statement€as€defamatory.€€Other€facts€areÏnecessary€to€understand€to€even€hold€theÏstatement€to€be€defamatory.€€It€is€not€on€itsÏface€defamatory.€€And€it€would€be€defamationÏper€¢quod£€if€I€thought€it€were€defamatory.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÌÓÓà@,,"ìàò òSummary€Judgmentó óˆÐ À€  Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€has€stated€that€"the€proper€standard€forÏreviewing€the€granting€of€a€summary€judgment€motion€should€beÏwhether€the€trial€court€was€legally€correct."€€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔHeat€&€Power€Corp.€v.€AirÐ p0 ÐProds.€&€¢Chems£.,€Inc.Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€320€Md.€584,€592€(1990)€(citations€omitted).€€€TheÐ H Ðtrial€court,€in€accordance€with€Maryland€Rule€2„501(e),€shallÏrender€summary€judgment€forthwith€if€the€motion€and€response€showÏthat€there€is€no€genuine€dispute€as€to€any€material€fact€and€thatÏthe€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€œñXñÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡ÔÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡ÔñXñThe›Ïpurpose€of€the€summary€judgment€procedure€is€not€to€try€the€case€orÏto€decide€factual€disputes,€but€to€decide€whether€there€is€an€issueÏof€fact€which€is€sufficiently€material€to€be€tried.€€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔSee€Coffey€v.€DerbyÐ €$@& ÐSteel€Co.Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€291€Md.€241,€247€(1981);€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Berkey£€v.€DeliaÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€287€Md.€302,€304Ð X& ( Ð(1980).Ìà  àIn€the€case€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔsub€judiceÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€there€is€no€dispute€as€to€the€facts.€€InÐ À)€#, Ðresponse€to€repeated€questioning€by€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£,€appellee,€in€theÏpresence€of€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€and€Dawn,€responded€that€she€thought€Mrs.Ð (-è&0 ТPeroutka£€was€an€emotionally€abused€spouse.¢×ƒ1×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€This€statement€wasÐ @ Ðsubsequently€republished€by€Dawn€to€her€sister€Holly.€€The€onlyÏissue€is€whether€the€statement€made€by€appellee€was€defamatory€and,Ïif€so,€whether€the€statement€constituted€defamation€per€¢quod£€orÏdefamation€per€se.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà@””%ìàò òDiscussionó óˆÐ ؘ  Ðà  àAs€this€appeal€concerns€one€person's€right€to€freedom€ofÏspeech€and€another's€right€to€redress€when€his€or€her€reputation€isÏharmed€by€unprotected€speech,€the€First€Amendment€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution,׃2°×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Articles€Forty׃3( ×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€Nineteen׃4Ø×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€theÐ Ø Ðâ âDeclaration€of€Rights€of€the€Maryland€œConstitution,›€are€implicated.€Ð ¨h ÐIn€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔFreedman›€v.€œStateÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€233€Md.€498,€505€(1964),€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔrev'd›€on€other€œgroundsÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€380€U.S.Ð @ Ð51,€85€S.€Ct.€734€(1965),€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated:Ìâ âÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓThe€guaranty€of€freedom€of€speech€and€pressÏordained€in€Art.€40€would€appear€to€be,€inÏlegal€effect,€substantially€similar€to€thatÏenunciated€in€the€First€Amendment,€and€it€isÏsignificant€that€Art.€40€has€been€treated€byÏthis€Court€as€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔpari›€œmateriaÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ›€with€the€FirstÐ  P  ÐAmend‚ment.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓӜԀ*XˆXXXRŸÔSee›€also€Pendergast€v.€œStateÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€99€Md.€App.€141,€148€(1994);€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔLandover›€Books,€Inc.€v.Ð  Ì  ÐPrince€George's€œCountyÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€81€Md.€App.€54,€76€(1989).€€We€shall,€there‚fore,Ð ä¤  Ðexamine€the€Supreme€Court's€decisions€for€guidance€in€the€case€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔsub›Ð ¼|  МjudiceÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ.›Ð ”T Ðà  àIn€order€to€protect€freedom€of€the€press€and€freedom€ofÏspeech,€the€Supreme€Court,€beginning€with€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔNew›€York€Times€Co.€v.€œSullivanÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›Ð ü¼ Ð376€U.S.€254,€84€S.€Ct.€710€(1964),€made€it€more€difficult€forÏindividuals€to€recover€for€defamation€under€state€law.€€In€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔNew›€YorkÐ d$ МTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€the€Court€held€that€for€a€public€official€to€recover€damagesÐ <ü Ðfor€defamation,€he€or€she€had€to€prove€that€the€statement€in€regardÏto€his€or€her€official€conduct€was€made€with€actual€malice.€€ThisÏwas€defined€by€the€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔNew›€York€œTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ›€Court€as€knowledge€that€theÐ 4#ô" Ðstatement€was€false€or€reckless€disregard€for€the€statement's€truthÏor€falsity.€€The€Court€later€held,€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔCurtis›€Publishing€Co.€v.€œButtsÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€388Ð œ&\ & ÐU.S.€130,€87€S.€Ct.€1975€(1967),€that€the€requirement€of€actualÏmalice€also€applied€to€"public€figures"€and€that€actual€malice€hadÏâ âto€be€proved€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€in€order€for€aÐ ”+T%, Ð"public€official"€or€"public€figure"€to€recover€damages€forÏdefamation.Ìâ âà  àThe€Supreme€Court€also€addressed€the€First€Amendment's€impactÏon€state€defamation€law€for€individuals€who€were€not€publicÏofficials€or€public€figures.€€In€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔRosenbloom›€v.€Metromedia,€œInc.Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€403€U.S.Ð € @ Ð29,€31„32,€91€S.€Ct.€1811,€1814€(1971)(footnote€omitted),€theÏSupreme€Court€examined€"whether€the€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔNew›€York€œTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ'›€knowing„or„Ð è¨  Ðreckless„falsity€standard€applies€in€a€state€civil€libel€actionÏbrought€not€by€a€`public€official'€or€a€`public€figure'€but€by€aÏprivate€individual€for€a€defamatory€falsehood€uttered€in€a€newsÏbroadcast€by€a€radio€station€about€the€individual's€involvement€inÏan€event€of€public€or€general€interest."€€In€a€plurality€opinion,Ïthe€Court€indicated€that€when€the€matter€was€of€public€concern,€theÏplain‚tiff,€even€if€a€private€individual,€had€to€show€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence€of€actual€malice.€€Ìà  àThree€years€later,€the€issue€addressed€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔGertz›€v.€Robert€Welch,€œInc.Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›Ð @ Ð418€U.S.€323,€332,€94€S.€Ct.€2997,€3003€(1974),€was€"whether€aÏnewspaper€or€broadcaster€that€publishes€defamatory€falsehoods€aboutÏan€individu‚al€who€is€neither€a€public€official€nor€a€public€figureÏmay€claim€a€constitutional€privilege€against€liability€for€theÏinjury€inflicted€by€those€statements."€€The€Court,€in€language€thatÏis€particularly€relevant€to€this€case,€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓUnder€the€First€Amendment€there€is€no€suchÏthing€as€a€false€idea.€€However€pernicious€anÏopinion€may€seem,€we€depend€for€its€correctionÏnot€on€the€conscience€of€judges€and€juries€butÏâ âon€the€competition€of€other€ideas.€€But€thereÐ ˜,X&0 Ðis€no€constitutional€value€in€false€statementsÏof€fact.Ìâ âÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XˆXXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ.›€at€339„40,€94€S.€Ct.€at€3007€(footnote€omitted).€€The€CourtÐ ˜X Ðultimately€held€that€the€states€were€free€to€define€the€standardsÏfor€defamation€of€private€individuals€so€long€as€œthey›€did€notÏimpose€liability€without€fault€and€did€not€"permit€recovery€ofÏpresumed€or€punitive€damages,€at€least€when€liability€is€not€basedÏon€a€showing€of€knowledge€of€falsity€or€reckless€disregard€for€theÏtruth."€€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ.›€at€349,€94€S.€Ct.€at€3011.€€Ð @  Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Court€further€addressed€the€impact€of€the€FirstÏAmendment€in€a€defamation€action€by€a€private€individual€on€aÏmatter€of€private€concern€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔDunn›€&€Bradstreet,€Inc.€v.€œGreenmossÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€472€U.S.Ð 8ø Ð749,€105€S.€Ct.€2939€(1985).€€In€that€case,€the€Court€addressedÏwhether€the€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔGertzÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ›€standard€applied€to€a€private€individual€defamedÐ  ` Ðon€a€matter€of€private€concern.€€In€a€plurality€opinion,€the€CourtÏheld€it€did€not.€€It€stated:€"[W]e€hold€that€the€state€interestÏadequately€supports€awards€of€presumed€and€punitive€damages€ð"ð€evenÐ ˜X Ðabsent€a€showing€of€`actual€malice.'"€€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔDunn›€&€œBradstreetÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€472€U.S.€atÐ (!è! Ð761,€105€S.€Ct.€at€2946€(footnote€omitted).€€The€Court,€inϜԀ*XˆXXXRŸÔPhiladelphia›€Newspapers,€Inc.€v.€œHeppsÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€475€U.S.€767,€775,€106€S.€Ct.€1558,Ð $P% Ð1563€(1986),€explained€its€holding€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔDunn›€&€œBradstreetÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ:›Ð h&( ' ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓWhen€the€speech€is€of€public€concern€but€theÏplaintiff€is€a€private€figure,€as€in€œÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔGertzÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,›€theÐ )È"* ÐConstitution€still€supplants€the€standards€ofÏthe€common€law,€but€the€constitutional€reƒ¼quirements€are,€in€at€least€some€of€theirÏrange,€less€forbidding€than€when€the€plaintiffÏis€a€public€figure€and€the€speech€is€of€publicÏconcern.€€When€the€speech€is€of€exclusivelyÐ Ü-œ'0 Ðpri‚vate€concern€and€the€plaintiff€is€a€privateÏfigure,€as€in€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔDunn€&€BradstreetÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€the€constitutionƒÐ È Ðal€requirements€do€not€necessarily€force€anyÏchange€in€at€least€some€of€the€features€of€theÏcommon„law€landscape.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àThe€plurality€opinion€in€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔDunn€&€BradstreetÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ€is€particularlyÐ  Ô Ðrelevant€in€the€case€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔsub€judiceÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ€as€we€are€dealing€with€the€allegedÐ ì ¬ Ðdefamation€of€a€private€individual€on€an€exclusively€privateÏconcern.€€It€is,€therefore,€clear€that€if€the€statement€made€byÏappellee€could€be€construed€as€being€defamatory,€many€of€theÏprotections€afforded€defendants€in€regard€to€speech€concerningÏmatters€of€public€concern€and€public€figures€or€public€officialsÏmay€not€be€applicable€unless€afforded€by€Maryland€law.€€We€shallÏdiscuss€Maryland€law€after€discussing€a€more€recent€Supreme€CourtÏcase€that€dealt€with€the€Constitutional€protection€afforded€toÏstatements€of€opinions.Ìà  àAs€we€have€previously€mentioned,€dicta€in€the€Supreme€Court'sÏÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Gertz£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ€opinion€implied€that€opinions€were€protected€by€the€FirstÐ d$ ÐAmendment.€€As€a€result,€the€lower€federal€courts€and€state€courtsÏformulated€various€tests€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€speechÏin€issue€constituted€a€statement€of€fact€or€opinion.€€In€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£€v.Ð \#$ ÐLorain€Journal€Co.Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€497€U.S.€1,€10,€€110€S.€Ct.€2695,€2701€(1990),€theÐ 4%ô& ÐSupreme€Court€addressed€whether€statements€of€opinion€wereÏconstitutionally€excepted€by€the€First€Amendment€from€the€applicaƒ¼tion€of€state€defamation€laws.€€The€Court€ultimately€held:€"We€areÏnot€persuaded€that,€in€addition€to€[the€already€existing€constitu…¼tional]€protections,€an€additional€separate€constitutionalÐ L- '0 Ðprivilege€for€`opinion'€is€required€to€ensure€the€freedom€ofÏexpression€guaranteed€by€the€First€Amend‚ment."€€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ.€at€21,€110€S.Ð Ð ÐCt.€at€2707.€€Ìà  àWe€shall€discuss€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ€in€more€detail€after€discussingÐ 8 ø ÐMaryland€defamation€law€and€Maryland€law€in€respect€to€Constituƒ¼tional€protections€affordedñUñ€to€stñUññVññUñyañUññVññWñatements€œofñWñ›€opinion.€€In€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔShapiro€v.Ð  `  ТMassengill£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€105€Md.€App.€743,€772,€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔcert.€deniedÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€341€Md.€28€(1995),€weÐ x8  Ðstated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àÓÓIn€a€case€involving€a€plaintiff€who€isÏnot€a€public€figure,€a€prima€¢facia£€case€ofÏdefama‚tion€requires€proof€of€the€followingÏelements:ÌÌà0 ¸ à(1)€that€the€defendant€made€a€defamatoryÏcommunication€ð"ð€i.e.,€that€he€communicatƒÐ P Ðed€a€statement€tending€to€expose€theÏplaintiff€to€public€scorn,€hatred,€conƒ¼tempt,€or€ridicule€to€a€third€person€whoÏreasonably€recognized€the€statement€asÏbeing€defamatory;€(2)€that€the€statementÏwas€false;€(3)€that€the€defendant€was€atÏfault€in€communicating€the€statement;€andÏ(4)€that€the€plaintiff€suffered€harm.ÓÓÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àAs€to€the€first€element,€the€determination€of€whether€aÏstatement€"is€reasonably€capable€of€a€defamatory€interpretation€isÏfor€the€court€upon€reviewing€the€statement€as€a€whole;€words€haveÏdifferent€meanings€depending€on€the€context€in€which€they€are€usedÏand€a€meaning€not€warranted€by€the€whole€publication€should€not€beÏimputed."€€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Batson£€v.€¢Shiflett£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€325€Md.€684,€723€(1992);€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔsee€also€ChesapeakeÐ 0(ð!* ÐPublishing€Corp.€v.€WilliamsÔ€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€339€Md.€285,€295€(1995)€(quoting€Ô€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Batson£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ).Ð *È#, Ðà  àWe€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€statement€was€notÏdefamatory€as€to€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£.€€Asserting€that€a€person€isÐ p-0'0 Ðemotionally€abused€is€not€the€type€of€statement€"which€tends€toÏexpose€a€person€to€public€scorn,€hatred,€contempt€or€ridicule,Ïthereby€discouraging€others€in€the€community€from€having€a€goodÏopinion€of,€or€from€associating€or€dealing€with,€that€person."€ÏÔ€*XˆXXXRŸÔ¢Batson£Ô€XRŸXX*XˆÔ,€325€Md.€at€722„23.€€Ð € @ Ðà  àThe€more€difficult€question€is€whether€the€statement€isÏdefamatory€as€to€Mr.€¢Peroutka£.€€Although€it€might€be€argued€thatÏthe€deceased€first€husband€was€the€implied€abusive€spouse€under€theÏcircum‚stances€here€present,€the€parties€assumed€that€any€implica…¼tion€as€to€the€identity€of€the€abuser€would€relate€to€œMrñZñsñZñ.›€¢Peroutka£.€ÏThe€assertion€that€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€is€an€emotionally€abused€spouse,Ïtherefore,€may€imply€that€Mr.€¢Peroutka£€is€the€abusing€spouse.€€ForÏpurposes€of€this€opinion,€we€shall€assume,€without€deciding,€thatÏan€assertion€that€a€person€emotionally€abuses€his€or€her€spouseÏcarries€with€it€a€defamatory€meaning.¢×ƒ5×Ý ƒ.ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×£€€The€issue€then€becomes,Ð h( Ðwhether,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€appellee's€statementÏthat€she€thought€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€anÏemotionally€abused€spouse€was€defamatory€to€Mr.€¢Peroutka£.Ìà  àWe€note€initially€that€appellee's€statement€was€given€as€anÏopinion€upon€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£'s€demand€that€appellee€render€anÏopinion.€€In€the€resolution€of€this€case,€we€shall€first€examineÏMaryland€cases€dealing€with€opinion€and€then€discuss€the€impact€ofÏthe€Supreme€Court's€holding€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.Ð 0ð  Ðà  àIn€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔA.S.€¢Abell£€Co.€v.€KirbyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€227€Md.€267€(1961),€a€case€decided€beforeÐ È  ÐÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Gertz£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€and€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔNew€York€TimesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€the€Court€of€Appeals€addressed€the€defense€ofÐ à  Ðfair€comment.€€In€that€case,€at€a€hearing€to€remove€the€PoliceÏCommissioner€of€Baltimore€City,€the€plaintiff€testified€that€he€hadÏseen€the€commissioner€with€".€.€.€an€underworld€figure€and€twoÏgirls€from€`the€Block'.€.€.€."€€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€at€270.€€The€next€day,€theÐ h( Ðdefendant€newspaper€published€the€following€paragraph€that€wasÏallegedly€defamatory:Ð Ð ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àÓÓ"Every€important€witness€against€theÏPolice€Commissioner,€moreover,€was€a€man€withÏa€motive.€€We€name€especially€the€infamousÏKirby,€former€Inspector€Forrester,€and€formerÏChief€Inspector€Ford€whose€retirement€wasÏrequested€and€granted€some€time€ago€withÏdazzling€haste."ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔKirbyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€227€Md.€at€271.€€The€Court€first€stated€the€applicable€law:Ð € @ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àWhether€a€publication€claimed€to€comeÏwithin€the€protection€of€fair€comment€isÏactionable€often€turns€on€whether€or€not€itÏcontains€misstatements€of€fact€asÏdistinguished€from€expression€of€opinion.€€TheÏmajority€of€the€States€(perhaps€three„fourths)Ïhold€that€the€immune€instances€of€publicÏdiscussion€are€those€limited€to€opinion,Ïcomment,€and€criticism,€and€do€not€embraceÏthose€in€which€there€is€any€false€assertion€ofÏdefamatory€fact.€.€.€.ÌÌà ¸ àMaryland€has€consistently€followed€theÏmajority€rule€ð"ð€that€defamatory€misstatementÐ €@ Ðof€fact€cannot€be€defended€successfully€asÏfair€comment.€€The€distinction€between€"fact"Ïand€"opinion,"€although€theoretically€andÏlogically€hard€to€draw,€is€usually€reasonablyÏdeterminable€as€a€practical€matter:€€Would€anÏordinary€person,€reading€the€matter€complainedÏof,€be€likely€to€understand€it€as€an€expresƒ¼sion€of€the€writer's€opinion€or€as€a€declaraƒ¼tion€of€an€existing€fact?€€An€opinion€may€beÏso€stated€as€to€raise€directly€the€inferenceÏof€a€factual€basis,€and€the€defense€of€fairÏcomment€usually€has€been€held€not€to€cover€anÏopinion€so€stated.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€at€273„74€(citations€omitted).€€On€appeal,€the€publisher€of€theÐ 8$ø& Ðstatement€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€giving€instructionsÏto€the€jury€because€it€failed€to€instruct€the€jury€that€it€couldÏconsider€all€of€the€plaintiff's€activities€and€the€investigationsÏinto€the€plaintiff's€activities€in€order€to€determine€whether€theÏstatement€was€defamatory.€€The€Court,€after€citing€variousÏcommentators,€stated:Ð à- '2 ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àWe€think€that€to€sustain€fair€comment,Ïfacts€which€are€set€out€in€the€publicationÏmust€be€truly€stated€(if€they€are€unprivilegƒ¼ed),€and€that€such€a€fact€which€is€not€set€outÏmust€both€be€true€and€be€so€referred€to€in€theÏpublication€as€to€be€either€recognizable€or€beÏmade€identifiable€and€easily€accessible.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€at€282.€€The€Court€ultimately€held€that€the€publisher€did€notÐ € @ Ðset€out€the€facts€sufficiently€in€the€editorial€or€reference€themÏso€as€to€inform€a€reader€of€the€facts€upon€which€the€publisherÏbased€the€opinion.Ìà  àOne€year€after€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Gertz£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€was€decided€by€the€Supreme€Court,€weÐ È  Ðexamined€the€protections€afforded€expressions€of€opinion€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Kapiloff£Ð à  Ðv.€DunnÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€27€Md.€App.€514€(1975),€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔcert.€deniedÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€276€Md.€741,€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔand€cert.€deniedÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,Ð ¸x Ð426€U.S.€907,€96€S.€Ct.€2228€(1976).€€In€that€case,€the€MontgomeryÏCounty€Sentinel€published€an€article€that€rated€various€high€schoolÏprincipals€in€the€area.€€The€source€material€for€the€article€wasÏincluded€along€with€the€publication.€€One€of€the€principals,€whoÏreceived€an€"unsuited"€rating,€sued€in€defamation€the€owners€of€theÏnewspaper,€the€newspaper's€editor,€and€the€reporters€who€wrote€theÏstory.€€After€the€defendants€moved€unsuccessfully€for€a€directedÏverdict,€the€jury€found€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff.€€The€publisherÏœappealed,›€claiming€that€the€rating€was€an€expression€of€opinionÏthat€could€not€be€the€basis€for€a€libel€action.Ìà  àAfter€discussing€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔKirby,€supraÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€and€the€dicta€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Gertz£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€that€we€haveÐ 0(ð!* Ðpreviously€quoted,€we€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓWe€take€it€that€appellants€contend€that€byÏcreating€a€constitutional€qualified€privilegeÏfor€false€statements€of€fact,€the€SupremeÏCourt€immunized€all€expressions€of€opinionÐ ð-°'1 Ðabout€individuals€in€the€public€official„¼public€figure€classification.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€do€not€read€the€Supreme€Court€deciƒ¼sions€so€broadly.€€Except€for€dictum€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔGertzÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›Ð `  Ðnothing€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔNew›€York€œTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€or€its€progeny€indiƒÐ L  Ðcates€that€the€Court€has€created€an€absoluteÏprivilege€for€all€expressions€of€opinion€onÏpublic€matters€and€therefore€eliminated€theÏdefense€of€"fair€comment."ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔKapiloffÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€27€Md.€App.€at€528„29€(footnote€omitted).€€We€ultimatelyÐ  à  Ðheld€thatÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓexpressions€of€opinion,€as€well€as€statementsÏof€fact,€concerning€public€officials€andÏpublic€figures€can€be€actionable.€€Each,Ïhowever,€is€under€the€protection€of€the€conƒ¼stitutional€privilege€of€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔNew›€York€œTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€€TrueÐ ¨h Ðstatements€of€facts€concerning€the€conduct€ofÏpublic€figures€are€absolutely€privileged.€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔA.S.›Ð \ ÐAbell€Co.€v.€Barnes,€œsupraÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€at€59.€€False€statements€ofÐ H Ðfact€are€protected€if€not€knowingly€false€orÏnot€published€with€reckless€disregard€of€theirÏtruth€or€falsity.€€Fair€and€honest€opinionsÏwhich€are€based€upon€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔtrueÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€facts€and€which€haveÐ ŒL Ðsome€relation€to€or€connection€with€thoseÏfacts€are€also€absolutely€privileged.€€Opinƒ¼ions€based€on€false€facts€are€protected€if€theÏpublisher€was€not€guilty€of€actual€malice€withÏregard€to€these€supportive€facts.ÌÌà ¸ à.€.€.€€Where€the€statements,€however,€areÏactual€expressions€of€opinion,€based€uponÏstated€or€readily€known€facts,€their€objectiveÏtruth€or€falsity€depends€on€the€veracity€ofÏthese€underlying€facts.€€Therefore,€any€deterƒ¼minations€with€regard€to€falsity€or€the€presƒ¼ence€of€actual€malice€must€look€to€the€statedÏor€known€facts€which€form€the€basis€for€theÏopinion€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔKapiloffÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€27€Md.€App.€at€531„33€(footnotes€omitted).€€In€a€footnoteÐ ø(¸"+ Ðin€the€text€quoted€above,€we€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àWe€preserve€the€distinction€betweenÏassertions€of€fact€on€one€hand€and€opin‚ions,Ïcomments€and€criticism€on€the€other€handÐ ð-°'1 Ðbecause€fair€and€honest€commentary,€by€itsÏvery€nature,€deserves€special€protection€in€aÏfree€society.€€As€[1]€Harper€&€James[,€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔThe›€LawÐ Ð Ðof€œTortsÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô]›€ðð€5.28€at€458€[(1954)]€point€out,€anÐ ¼| Ðindividual€is€not€actually€libelled€by€opinƒ¼ions€based€on€supporting€facts:€"If€the€actualÏfacts€are€accurately€stated,€an€opinion,€basedÏthereon€will€be€understood€as€such€and€takenÏfor€what€it€is€worth.€€In€such€a€case€theÏwriter€may,€by€expressing€his€opinion,€`libelÏhimself€rather€than€the€subject€of€his€reƒ¼marks'."ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔKapiloffÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€27€Md.€App.€at€531€n.19.€€We€ultimately€held€that€the€caseÐ °p  Ðshould€not€have€been€submitted€to€the€jury€because€the€plaintiffÏcould€not€prove€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€underlyƒ¼ing€facts€in€the€article€were€false€and€that€the€defendants€knewÏthe€statements€were€false€or€recklessly€disregarded€their€truth€orÏfalsity.Ìà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€addressed€the€rendering€of€a€professionalÏopinion€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBerkey›€v.€œDeliaÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€287€Md.€302€(1980).€€The€plaintiff,€a€policeÐ è¨ Ðofficer,€stopped€the€defendant,€Mr.€Berkey,€for€exceeding€theÏmaximum€speed€limit.€€As€a€result€of€that€incident,€Mr.€Berkey,€aÏpsychiatrist,€wrote€a€letter€on€his€professional€letterhead€to€theÏplaintiff's€supervisor.€€In€that€letter,€Mr.€Berkey€gave€someÏbackground€information€regarding€the€stop€and€then€concluded:€"IÏquestion€if€this€young€officer€is€mentally€deranged,€if€he€isÏpsychopathic€and/or€pathologically€sadistic."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€308.Ð  'à ) Ðà  àAlthough€the€Court€questioned€whether€the€police€officer€wasÏa€public€official,€it€proceeded€under€the€assumption€that€he€was.€ÏAfter€holding€that€some€of€the€facts€in€the€case€were€in€dispute,Ïit€stated:Ð ¨-h'1 ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓIt€is€apparent€that€Berkey€regards€Delia'sÏ"behavior€as€abnormally€cruel€and€inhumane,Ïrude€and€insensitive,€threatening€and€puniƒ¼tive"€upon€the€basis€of€his€own€observation€ofÏthis€incident.€€If€the€trier€of€fact€were€toÏdetermine€that€Berkey€spoke€a€calculatedÏuntruth€in€giving€his€version€of€the€incident,Ïthe€version€which€is€the€basis€for€Berkey'sÏconclusion€relative€to€Delia's€mental€condiƒ¼tion,€then€a€trier€of€fact€could€conclude€thatÏBerkey€spoke€with€reckless€disregard€for€theÏtruth€when€he€used€the€adjectives€which€he€didÏto€characterize€Delia's€behavior€on€thisÏoccasion.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€330.Ð ø¸  Ðà  àThe€Court€of€Appeals€addressed€a€private€individual's€actionÏfor€libel€based€on€an€opinion€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔHearst›€Corp.€v.€œHughesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€297€Md.€112Ð `  Ð(1983).€€In€that€case,€Dawn€Rottman€purchased€an€automobile€from€anÏauto€dealership€in€July€1975.€€Almost€immediately,€RottmanÏexperienced€problems€with€the€automobile.€€In€August€of€1975,€theÏautomobile€dealership€from€which€the€car€was€purchased€was€sold€toÏanother€company.€€The€plaintiff€was€employed€by€that€company€as€itsÏoperating€manager.€€Rottman's€automobile€was€taken€to€the€dealerƒ¼ship€on€numerous€occasions€to€try€to€fix€it.€€During€a€test€driveÏon€29€June€1977,€the€automobile€was€found€to€be€functioningÏproperly.€€On€22€July€1977,€the€car's€engine€stopped€and€neverÏagain€functioned.Ìà  àAs€a€result€of€her€dealings€with€the€dealership,€Rottman€wroteÏa€letter€that€was€read€on€a€television€station€owned€by€theÏdefendant.€€In€that€letter,€she€indicated€that€she€purchased€theÏcar€from€the€plaintiff,€that€the€plaintiff€had€explained€to€her€theÏdealership's€"great"€buyer€protec‚tion€plan,€and€that€the€automobileÐ -Ø&1 Ðwas€never€properly€fixed.€€She€concluded€in€the€letter,€"Mr.ÏHughes,€here's€one€person€you€could€offer€a€camera€and€calculatorÏto€and€I€still€wouldn't€buy€another€AMC€product."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€116.Ð `  Ðà  àThe€plaintiff,€asserting€that€the€broadcast€had€disparaged€hisÏreputation€in€his€trade,€business,€or€employment,€sued€theÏtelevision€station€for€defamation.€€The€trial€court€ruled€in€hisÏfavor.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€that€"there€is€an€absoluteÏprivilege€for€the€publication€of€opinions€which€disclose€the€factsÏupon€which€they€are€based."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€131.€€The€Court€cited€sectionÐ È  Ð566€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€which€provides:€"`AÏdefamatory€communication€may€consist€of€a€statement€in€the€form€ofÏan€opinion,€but€a€statement€of€this€nature€is€actionable€only€if€itÏimplies€the€allegation€of€undisclosed€defamatory€facts€as€the€basisÏfor€the€opinion.'"€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€€The€defendant€argued€that€Rottman€wasÐ  à Ðexpressing€her€opinion€concerning€the€automobile€and€the€protectionÏplan,€not€the€plaintiff,€and€that€she€explained€the€facts€underlyƒ¼ing€her€opinion.€€The€Court€held€that€section€566€of€the€Restateƒ¼ment€(Second)€of€Torts,€even€if€it€reflected€Maryland€law,€was€notÏapplicable€because€the€opinion€concerned€the€plaintiff€and€wasÏbased€on€false€facts€in€that€he€did€not€sell€the€automobile€toÏRottman€and€he€was€not€connected€with€the€dealership€at€the€time€ofÏmost€of€the€attempted€repairs.Ìà  àWe€addressed€a€similar€issue€as€that€addressed€by€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBerkeyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔHughley›€v.€œMcDermottÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€72€Md.€App.€391€(1987),€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔaff'dÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›Ð +È$. Ð317€Md.€12€(1989).€€In€that€case,€the€plaintiff€was€a€candidate€forÐ à, &0 Ðthe€position€of€Park€Police€Officer€with€the€Maryland„NationalÏCapital€Park€and€Planning€Commission€(MNCPPC).€€As€part€of€hisÏtraining,€the€plaintiff€trained€with€a€horse„mounted€unit€evenÏthough€he€expressed€his€desire€not€to€train€with€such€a€unit.€ÏWhile€undertaking€this€training,€the€plaintiff€experienced€nauseaÏand€mild€stomach€problems.€€The€MNCPPC€eventually€requested€thatÏthe€plaintiff€meet€with€the€defendant,€a€psychologist,€whoÏconsulted€the€MNCPPC€and€provided€counseling€services€to€itsÏemployees.€€At€that€meeting,€the€defendant€told€the€plaintiff€thatÏhe€believed€the€plaintiff€had€a€phobia€of€horses€and€that€he€didÏnot€think€the€plaintiff€had€an€authority€problem.€€The€defendantÏrecommended€hypnosis€treatment€that€the€plaintiff€indicated€he€wasÏunwilling€to€undertake.€€At€a€later€meeting€with€the€plaintiff'sÏsuperiors€and€the€plaintiff,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€thoughtÏthe€plaintiff's€phobia€was€real€and€suggested€that€the€plaintiffÏhad€consented€to€hypnosis€to€treat€this€phobia.€€The€plaintiffÏinterjected€at€that€point€and€indicated€that€he€would€not€undertakeÏhypnosis€therapy.€€A€few€days€later,€the€defendant€wrote€one€of€theÏplaintiff's€superiors€a€letter€in€which€he€stated€that€theÏplaintiff€did€not€suffer€from€a€phobia€of€horses€and€that€theÏphysical€symptoms€he€experienced€were€"false€and€grossly€exaggeratƒ¼ed."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔMcDermottÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€72€Md.€App.€at€398.€€The€letter€was€followed€by€aÐ 'Ð * Ðsupplemental€correspon‚dence€that€gave€the€defendant's€findings€inÏmore€detail.Ìà  àThe€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏdefendant.€€On€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€that€"his€letters€.€.Ð ˜-X'2 Ð.€contained€only€expressions€of€his€opinions€following€hisÏprofessional€evaluation€of€the€[plaintiff]."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€403.€€AfterÐ Ð Ðciting€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBerkey,›€œsupraÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€we€stated:Ð ¨ h ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓComment€c.€to€ðð€566€of€the€Restatement€(Secƒ¼ond)€of€Torts€(1976)€points€out€that€a€defamaƒ¼tory€communication€may€consist€of€a€statementÏin€the€form€of€an€opinion€where€the€defendantÏbases€his€expression€of€a€derogatory€opinionÏon€his€own€statement€of€false€and€defamatoryÏfacts.€€In€the€case€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔsub›€œjudiceÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€the€record€beforeÐ 0ð  Ðthe€hearing€judge€would€support€a€finding€byÏthe€trier€of€fact€that€the€statements€of€theÏ[defendant],€although€couched€as€expressionsÏof€opinion,€were€calculated€untruths€whichÏadversely€affected€the€[plaintiff's]€employƒ¼ment€and€were€therefore€defamatory.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€404„05€(citations€omitted).Ð ”T Ðà  àA€review€of€the€Maryland€cases€indicates€that€a€statement,Ïeven€if€expressed€in€terms€of€an€opinion,€can€be€defamatory€underÏcertain€circumstances€regardless€of€whether€the€statement€concernsÏa€public€figure€or€private€person.€€When€the€underlying€facts€usedÏto€form€the€opinion€are€not€given€along€with€the€defamatoryÏstatement,€the€statement€itself€may€be€treated€as€being€factual€andÏtherefore€potentially€defamatory.€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔSee›€œKirbyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€227€Md.€at€282.€€If€theÐ Ì!Œ" Ðfacts€from€which€an€individual€forms€a€conclusion€are€given€but€areÏfalse,€the€defendant€is€potentially€subject€to€liability€forÏdefamatory€speech€based€on€the€false€statement€of€facts.€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔSee›€HearstÐ Ä&„ ( МCorp.Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€297€Md.€at€131„32;€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBerkeyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€287€Md.€at€330;€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔHughleyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€72€Md.€App.Ð œ(\"* Ðat€405.€€If€the€facts€from€which€a€defendant€forms€his€or€herÏâ âopinion€are€given€or€are€readily€available€and€those€facts€cannotÐ ,Ä%. Ðbe€proved€false,€the€defendant€is€not€subject€to€liability€for€theÏopinion.€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔSee›€œKapiloffÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€27€Md.€App.€at€532€n.19.Ð Ð Ðâ âà  àWe€shall€now€examine€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔMilkovich›€v.€Lorain€Journal€œCo.Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€497€U.S.€1,€110Ð ¨ h ÐS.€Ct.€2695€(1990),€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€viewsÏexpressed€by€the€Supreme€Court€are€in€accord€with€Maryland€law.€€InϜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔMilkovichÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€the€plaintiff€was€a€high€school€wrestling€coach.€€DuringÐ  `  Ða€wrestling€match€with€another€school,€his€team€was€involved€in€anÏaltercation€that€resulted€in€numerous€injuries.€€The€state€athleticÏassociation€held€a€hearing€and,€after€hearing€testimony€from€theÏplaintiff€and€others,€placed€the€team€on€probation€for€one€year€andÏforbid€the€team€from€participating€in€the€state€tournament.€ÏSeveral€parents€of€wrestlers€then€sued€the€state€athletic€associaƒ¼tion€seeking€a€restraining€order€against€the€association's€ruling.€ÏAt€that€trial,€the€plaintiff€again€testified.€€The€newspaperÏpublished€an€article€the€next€day€that€indicated€the€plaintiff€hadÏcommitted€perjury€by€giving€false€testimony€at€trial.€€TheÏplaintiff€brought€suit€against€a€newspaper€and€a€reporter€forÏdefamation€based€on€the€article.Ìà  àThe€Court,€after€quoting€from€section€566€of€the€RestatementÏ(Second)€of€Torts€and€examining€its€previous€decisions€regardingÏthe€constitutional€protections€afforded€by€the€First€Amendment,Ïheld€that€there€is€no€"wholesale€defamation€exemption€for€anythingÏthat€might€be€labelled€`opinion.'"€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€18,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2705.€Ð x)8#, ÐThe€Court€noted:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àIf€a€speaker€says,€"In€my€opinion€JohnÏJones€is€a€liar,"€he€implies€a€knowledge€ofÐ ¨-h'1 Ðfacts€which€lead€to€the€conclusion€that€JonesÏtold€an€untruth.€€Even€if€the€speaker€statesÏthe€facts€upon€which€he€bases€his€opinion,€ifÏthose€facts€are€either€incorrect€or€incomƒ¼plete,€or€if€his€assessment€of€them€is€erroneƒ¼ous,€the€statement€may€still€imply€a€falseÏassertion€of€fact.€€Simply€couching€suchÏstatements€in€terms€of€opinion€does€not€dispelÏthese€implications;€and€the€statement,€"In€myÏopinion€Jones€is€a€liar,"€can€cause€as€muchÏdamage€to€reputation€as€the€statement,€"JonesÏis€a€liar."ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€18„19,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2705„06.Ð h(  Ðà  àThe€Court€held€that€opinions€were€adequately€protected€byÏexisting€constitutional€doctrine€and€that€there€was€no€need€toÏcreate€a€distinction€between€opinion€and€fact.€€The€first€protecƒ¼tion€noted€by€the€Court€was€that€"a€statement€on€matters€of€publicÏconcern€must€be€provable€as€false€before€there€can€be€liabilityÏunder€state€defamation€law."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€19,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2706.€€ItÐ Ð Ðwent€on€to€state:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[U]nlike€the€statement,€"In€my€opinion€MayorÏJones€is€a€liar,"€the€statement,€"In€my€opinƒ¼ion€Mayor€Jones€shows€his€abysmal€ignorance€byÏaccepting€the€teachings€of€Marx€and€Lenin,"Ïwould€not€be€actionable.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€20,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2706.€€In€a€footnote,€the€Court€stated:Ð ("è# ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àWe€note€that€the€issue€of€falsity€relatesÏto€the€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔdefamatoryÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€facts€implied€by€a€statement.€Ð È$ˆ& ÐFor€instance,€the€statement€"I€think€JonesÏlied,"€may€be€provable€as€false€on€two€levels.€ÏFirst,€that€the€speaker€really€did€not€thinkÏJones€had€lied€but€said€it€anyway,€and€secondÏthat€Jones€really€had€not€lied.€€It€is,€ofÏcourse,€the€second€level€of€falsity€whichÏwould€ordinarily€serve€as€the€basis€for€aÏdefamation€action,€though€falsity€at€the€firstÏlevel€may€serve€to€establish€malice€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ҜԀ*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€at€20€n.7,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2706€n.7.Ð „-D'1 Ðà  àThe€Court€also€noted€that€opinions€were€protected€by€the€lineÏof€cases€holding€that€"imaginative€expres‚sion"€or€"rhetoricalÏhyperbole"€is€protected€under€the€First€Amendment.€€FurtherÏprotection€was€afforded€by€the€culpability€requirements€of€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔNew›€YorkÐ ð ° МTimesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€and€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔGertzÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.›€€Finally,€the€Court€noted€that€these€statements€wereÐ È ˆ Ðprotected€by€the€enhanced€appellate€review€mandated€by€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBose›€Corp.€v.Ð  `  ÐConsumers€Union€of€the€United€States,€œInc.Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€466€U.S.€485,€104€S.€Ct.€1949Ð x8  Ð(1984).Ìà  àThe€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔMilkovichÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€œCourt›€framed€the€issue€in€regard€to€whether€theÐ à   Ðstatement€was€defamatory€as€"whether€a€reasonable€factfinder€couldÏconclude€that€the€statements€in€the€.€.€.€column€imply€an€assertionÏthat€petitioner€Milkovich€perjured€himself€in€a€judicial€proceedƒ¼ing."€€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔMilkovichÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€497€U.S.€at€21,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2707.€€The€CourtÐ h( Ðconcluded€that€the€connotation€that€€Milkovich€perjured€himself€wasÏsufficiently€factual€to€be€suscepti‚ble€of€being€proved€true€orÏfalse.€€Additionally,€the€Court€indicated€that€the€protectionsÏprovided€by€the€other€cases€were€not€applicable.Ìà  àThe€Maryland€Court€of€Appeals€discussed€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔMilkovichÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô›€in€œÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔBatson›€v.Ð €"@" МShiflettÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,›€325€Md.€684€(1992).€€That€case€involved€a€former€localÐ X$$ Ðunion's€president's€defamation€suit€against€a€national€union€andÏits€president.€€The€alleged€defamatory€statement€was€set€out€in€aÏflyer€that€was€distributed€by€the€national€union€to€the€localÏunion's€members.€€The€flyer€provided:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ"[W]e€think€that€you€ought€to€answer€theseÏspecific€charges€because€all€of€the€checksÏpaid€to€Harmon€were€signed€by€you.€€If€HarmonÐ .À'0 Ðis€guilty€of€misuse€of€the€locals€[sic]€fundsÏthen€you€may€be€too.€€A€point€of€interest€isÏthat€we€have€just€started€checking€AlvinÏ¢Shiflett£'s€gas€receipts€and€have€already€foundÏMrs.€¢Schiflett£€charging€gas€to€the€local."ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€at€723.Ð ð ° Ðà  àThe€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Batson£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€Court€addressed€the€petitioners'€argument€thatÐ È ˆ Ð"their€statements€in€[the]€Flyer€.€.€.€are€immunized€as€anÏexpression€of€opinion€constitutionally€protected€in€the€absence€ofÏ`actual€malice.'"€€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€at€724.€€Citing€section€566€of€the€RestateƒÐ À€  Ðment€(Second)€of€Torts,€the€Court€noted€that€expressions€of€opinionÏcould€be€actionable.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€further€noted€that€theÏSupreme€Court€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€"warned€about€creating€a€`wholesaleÐ ¸x Ðdefamation€exemption€for€anything€that€might€be€¢labelled£€"opinƒ¼ion."'"€€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔIdÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô.€(citing€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€497€U.S.€at€18,€110€S.€Ct.€at€2705).€Ð  à ÐIt€ultimate‚ly€concluded€that€the€language€used€in€the€flyer€was€notÏfigurative€or€hyperbolic€language€and€was€therefore€capable€ofÏdefamatory€meaning.€€Although€the€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Batson£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€Court€did€not€addressÐ Ø Ðwhether€the€statement€could€be€proved€true€or€false,€it€is€clearÏthat€the€assertions€in€the€flyer€were€capable€of€verification.Ìà  àAs€we€view€the€case€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔsub€judiceÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€the€ultimate€issue€revolvesÐ $Ð$ Ðaround€the€¢verifiability£€of€the€alleged€defamatory€statement.€ÏSection€566€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€cited€by€theÏCourt€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€provides:Ð )È"* ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓA€defamatory€communication€may€consist€of€aÏstatement€in€the€form€of€an€opinion,€but€aÏstatement€of€this€nature€is€actionable€only€ifÏit€implied€the€allegation€of€undisclosed€factsÏas€the€basis€for€the€opinion.Ð .À'0 ЇÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒThe€Restatement€distinguishes€between€"pure"€opinion€and€"simple"Ïopinion.€€A€pure€opinion€is€based€on€disclosed€or€known€facts€whileÏa€simple€opinion€is€based€on€undisclosed€facts.€€The€RestatementÏdivides€the€rule€into€four€fact€patterns:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ à(1)€€If€the€defendant€œbaseñNñiñNñs›€his€expresƒ¼sion€of€a€derogatory€opinion€of€the€plaintiffÏon€his€own€statement€of€false€and€defamatoryÏfacts,€he€is€subject€to€liability€for€theÏfactual€statement€but€not€for€the€expressionÏof€opinion.ÌÌà ¸ à(2)€€If€the€defendant€bases€his€expresƒ¼sion€of€a€derogatory€opinion€of€the€plaintiffÏon€his€own€statement€of€facts€that€are€notÏdefamatory,€he€is€not€subject€to€liability€forÏthe€factual€statement€ð"ð€nor€for€the€expressionÐ Ø Ðof€opinion,€so€long€as€it€does€not€reasonablyÏindicate€an€assertion€of€the€existence€ofÏother,€defamatory,€facts€that€would€justifyÏthe€forming€of€the€opinion.€€The€same€resultÏis€reached€if€the€statement€of€facts€is€defamƒ¼atory€but€the€facts€are€true€.€.€.€or€if€theÏdefendant€is€not€shown€to€be€guilty€of€theÏrequisite€fault€regarding€the€truth€or€defamaƒ¼tory€character€of€the€statement€of€facts€.€.€.Ï.ÌÌà ¸ à(3)€€If€the€defendant€bases€his€expresƒ¼sion€of€a€derogatory€opinion€on€the€existenceÏof€"facts"€that€he€does€not€state€but€that€areÏassumed€to€be€true€by€both€parties€to€theÏcommunication,€and€if€the€communication€doesÏnot€give€rise€to€the€reasonable€inference€thatÏit€is€also€based€on€other€facts€that€areÏdefamatory,€he€is€not€subject€to€liability,Ïwhether€the€assumed€facts€are€defamatory€orÏnot.ÌÌà ¸ à(4)€€If€the€defendant€expresses€a€derogaƒ¼tory€opinion€without€disclosing€the€facts€onÏwhich€it€is€based,€he€is€subject€to€liabilityÏif€the€comment€creates€the€reasonable€inferƒ¼ence€that€the€opinion€is€justified€by€theÏexistence€of€unexpressed€defamatory€facts.ÌÌâ âÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€566€¢cmt£.€c€(1976).Ð ˆ,H&1 Ðà  àAlthough€the€rule€set€out€in€the€Restatement€at€first€glanceÏâ âmay€seem€to€contradict€the€analysis€established€by€the€SupremeÏCourt€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€upon€further€analysis€the€two€can€be€construed€toÐ `  Ðbe€consistent.€€The€Court€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€addressed€a€newspaper€articleÐ 8 ø Ðthat€implied€the€plaintiff€had€perjured€himself.€€That€article,Ïhowever,€did€not€provide€all€of€the€facts€from€which€the€conclusionÏwas€drawn.€€Of€the€four€fact€patterns€provided€by€the€Restatement,ÏÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€clearly€fits€into€number€four,€the€one€in€which€no€factsÐ À€  Ðare€disclosed.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€fact€pattern€numberÏfour,€if€the€opinion€is€found€to€be€false,€liability€is€imposed.€ÏThe€facts€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔA.S.€¢Abell£€Co.€v.€KirbyÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€227€Md.€267€(1961),€also€illustrateÐ ¸x Ðthe€application€of€this€rule.Ìà  àWe€are€further€persuaded€that€the€analysis€in€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€and€theÐ  à ÐRestatement€are€consistent€by€examining€the€second€fact€pattern€ofÏthe€Restatement€and€an€example€given€by€the€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€Court.€€FactÐ ˆH Ðpattern€number€two€of€the€Restatement€provides€that€a€defendant€isÏnot€subject€to€liability€if€he€or€she€bases€a€derogatory€opinion€onÏhis€or€her€own€statement€of€facts€that€are€not€defamatory.€€TheÏÔ€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô€Court€stated:€"Thus,€unlike€the€statement,€`In€my€opinionÐ $Ð$ ÐMayor€Jones€is€a€liar,'€the€statement,€`In€my€opinion€Mayor€JonesÏshows€his€abysmal€ignorance€by€accepting€the€teachings€of€Marx€andÏLenin,'€would€not€be€actionable."€€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Milkovich£Ô€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€497€U.S.€at€20,€110€S.Ð )È"* ÐCt.€at€2706.€€In€this€example,€the€Supreme€Court€assumed€that€theÏfactual€assertion€that€Mayor€Jones€accepted€the€teachings€of€MarxÏand€Lenin€was€true.€€As€these€examples€show,€when€the€facts€for€theÐ .À'0 Ðbases€of€the€opinion€are€given€and€the€underlying€facts€are€true€orÏthe€required€fault€cannot€be€shown,€the€defendant€is€not€subject€toÏliability.€€The€Maryland€case€of€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Kapiloff£€v.€DunnÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€27€Md.€App.€514Ð `  Ð(1975),€is€illustrative€of€the€second€fact€pattern€of€the€Restateƒ¼ment.Ìà  àUnder€the€first€fact€pattern€of€the€Restatement,€liability€isÏimposed€on€a€defendant€if€he€or€she€bases€the€opinion€on€his€or€herÏstatement€of€false€facts.€€The€Maryland€cases€of€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔHearst€Corp.€v.€HughesÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,Ð x8  Ð297€Md.€112€(1983),€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Berkey£€v.€DeliaÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€287€Md.€302€(1980),€and€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔ¢Hughley£€v.Ð P  ÐMcDermottÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€72€Md.€App.€391€(1987),€are€illustrative€of€the€firstÐ (è Ðfact€pattern€of€the€Restatement.Ìà  àIn€the€case€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔsub€judiceÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€appellee€did€not€base€her€opinion€thatÐ P ÐMrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€an€emotionally€abused€spouse€on€facts€disclosedÏin€the€opinion.€€According‚ly,€this€case€is€not€similar€to€factÏpatterns€number€one€or€two€of€the€Restatement.€€Although€MarylandÏcases€have€addressed€factual€patterns€similar€to€fact€patterns€1,Ï2,€and€4€of€comment€c€to€section€566€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€ofÏTorts,€we€have€not€addressed€whether€a€defendant€should€be€heldÏliable€for€an€opinion€that€was€based€on€facts€known€by€the€personsÏto€whom€the€statement€was€published.€€Ìà  àWe€shall€hold,€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€thatÏappellee's€statement€was€not€defamatory.€€We€explain.€Ìà  àThe€alleged€defamatory€statement€was€published€to€fourÏpersons:€Mr.€¢Peroutka£,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£,€Dawn,€and€Holly.€€All€ofÏthese€persons€had€firsthand€knowledge€of€the€facts€that€ledÐ (-è&0 Ðappellee€to€form€an€opinion€that€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€was€an€emotionallyÏabused€spouse.€€ñPññOñOmñOññPññQñIn€this€conteñQññRññQñsñQññRññQñxt,€it€was€evident€that€appellee€wasÏexprñQññSññQñersñQññSññTñesñTññQñsing€an€opinion.€€ñQñComment€b€to€section€566€of€the€RestatementÏprovides:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àThe€pure€type€of€expression€of€opinionÏmay€also€occur€when€the€maker€of€the€commentÏdoes€not€himself€express€the€alleged€facts€onÏwhich€he€bases€the€expression€of€opinion.€ÏThis€happens€when€both€parties€to€the€communiƒ¼cation€know€the€facts€or€assume€their€exisƒ¼tence€and€the€comment€is€clearly€based€onÏthose€assumed€facts€and€does€not€imply€theÏexistence€of€other€facts€in€order€to€justifyÏthe€comment.ÌÌÓÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` Òà  àIn€the€case€Ô€*XT¡XXXRŸÔsub€judiceÔ€XRŸXX*XT¡Ô,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£,€Dawn,€Holly,€andÐ Ø Ðappellee€knew€that€(1)€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€had€placed€both€Holly€and€DawnÏin€the€custody€of€the€¢BCDSS£;€(2)€appellee€was€the€foster€careÏworker€for€both€Dawn€and€Holly;€(3)€as€Dawn's€and€Holly's€socialÏworker,€appellee€received€information€concerning€their€feelings€andÏtheir€family's€interaction;€(4)€appellee€had€the€opportunity€toÏobserve€€Mr.€and€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£'s€behavior€in€relation€to€Holly€andÏDawn;€(5)€when€Dawn€indicated€that€she€thought€she€was€sexuallyÏabused€by€Mr.€¢Peroutka£,€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€wrote€numerous€letters€toÏfriends€and€acquaintances€of€the€family€that€divulged€personal€andÏembarrassing€information€about€Dawn;€(6)€Mr.€and€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£Ïfiled€a€Motion€for€a€Restraining€Order€when€Dawn€went€to€visit€herÏhalf„sibling€shortly€after€she€was€placed€in€foster€care;€(7)Ïneither€Mr.€¢Peroutka£€nor€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£€visited€Dawn€while€she€wasÏhospitalized€for€a€severe€eating€disorder;€and€(8)€when€Dawn€wentÏto€deliver€a€letter€to€Mr.€and€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£,€in€which€she€recantedÐ Ð,&1 Ðher€allega‚tions€of€sexual€abuse,€a€complaint€for€criminal€trespassÏwas€filed€against€her.€€Because€all€the€persons€who€received€theÏalleged€defamatory€statement€knew€the€underlying€facts€of€theÏconflicts€within€this€family€unit€giving€rise€to€appellee'sÏopinion,€appellee€is€not€subject€to€liability,€although,€as€withÏany€opinion,€appellant€is€free€to€disagree.Ìà  àWe€hold€that€the€statement€made€by€appellee€was€not€defamatoryÏas€to€either€Mr.€or€Mrs.€¢Peroutka£.€€We,€accordingly,€affirm€theÏgrant€of€summary€judgment€by€the€trial€court.Ìà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àò òJUDGMENT€AFFIRMED;€COSTSÐ P ÐTO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLANTSó ó.Ðà p(#p(# ÐÑ€6ÑÑ€8ÑÑ€9Ñ