Final answer:
Yes, opinion is generally a valid defense in a defamation lawsuit as it is not meant to be a statement of fact. Public figures must also prove actual malice according to the ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Gertz decision allows states to set standards for defamation involving private individuals, requiring fault but not necessarily actual malice.
Step-by-step explanation:
Is opinion generally a valid defense in a defamation lawsuit because it is not meant to be a factual statement? The answer is Yes. In defamation suits, particularly ones involving libel or slander, the distinction between fact and opinion is critical. Statements that are clearly identified as opinions are not presented as factual assertions and generally do not constitute defamation of character. In cases involving public figures, the claimant must demonstrate that the statement was made with actual malice -- meaning with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity -- to succeed in a claim of defamation.
Applying the precedent set in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, the courts require public figures to meet a higher standard of proof for defamation. This higher standard was established to prevent public officials from using defamation lawsuits to silence critics. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling supports the role of free expression and debate on public issues, which is central to the First Amendment.
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., it was decided that states could decide their own standards for private individuals, but still, liability cannot be imposed without fault and can only result in actual damages without the presence of actual malice. Therefore, opinions, especially in editorials and columns where it's explicit that the statements are not factual assertions, are generally protected from defamation lawsuits.