Final answer:
In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's majority opinion held that opinions that are not provably false cannot be the basis of a libel action but statements that imply an assertion of objective fact can be actionable, further reinforcing First Amendment protections.
Step-by-step explanation:
In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist held that opinions that do not contain a provably false factual connotation, or simply put, statements that are not 'sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false,' cannot be the basis of a libel action. However, statements that are phrased as an opinion but imply an assertion of objective fact may still be actionable. This case underscores the balance the judiciary seeks between protecting freedom of expression and addressing harm caused by defamatory statements.
The ruling stems from the principles established in earlier cases such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which provided protection for the press against lawsuits by public officials unless actual malice could be demonstrated. Milkovich furthered the difficulty for public figures to win defamation suits without clear proof of malice or reckless disregard for the truth, reinforcing the strong First Amendment protections afforded to free speech and press in the United States.