Walter Block v. New York Times Company, 867 F.3d 585

Walter Block, a Loyola economics professor and libertarian scholar, was quoted in a New York Times article discussing libertarian ties to Senator Rand Paul; the article twice quoted him (once anonymously, later by name) as describing slavery as "not so bad" and criticizing the Civil Rights Act.
Block sued the NYT for defamation and false light, alleging the article took his remarks out of context and portrayed him as endorsing chattel slavery and racist views.
The NYT filed a Louisiana Article 971 (anti‑SLAPP) special motion to strike; the district court granted dismissal for failure to create factual disputes as to falsity, fault, and defamatory meaning.
On initial appeal the Fifth Circuit remanded for clarification of Article 971 standards (noting courts cannot weigh evidence or resolve credibility), and on remand the district court again dismissed under Article 971; Block appealed.
The Fifth Circuit panel assumed, without deciding, that Article 971 applies in federal diversity cases (issues on Erie and Article 971 were forfeited by Block) and reviewed the Article 971 dismissal de novo.
The court held that Block presented genuine issues of material fact as to falsity (quotation taken out of context), actual malice (public-figure standard), and defamatory meaning, and therefore reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Article 971 (anti‑SLAPP) in federal court	Article 971 is procedural or conflicts with Federal Rules and thus inapplicable	Article 971 applies to this diversity action	Forfeited by Block on appeal; court assumed Article 971 applies without deciding
Falsity (quotation/context)	NYT quoted Block accurately word-for-word but omitted context, materially changing meaning and conveying endorsement of chattel slavery	Quotation and nearby unnamed paragraph accurately captured Block’s views; words like "pick cotton, sing songs" show he described chattel slavery as "not so bad"	Genuine issue of material fact exists whether decontextualization distorted meaning; cannot decide on Article 971 motion
Fault / Actual malice (public-figure standard)	Material alteration or decontextualization supports a jury question on actual malice	No material alteration; article accurately conveyed Block’s views so no actual malice shown	Because falsity is disputed, a factual issue on actual malice exists; dismissal premature
Defamatory meaning	Article could reasonably be read as portraying Block as endorsing chattel slavery and racist views; harms followed	Article did not attribute the unnamed, exculpatory comment to Block and therefore did not convey defamatory meaning	Court found a fact issue whether a reasonable reader would understand the article to describe Block as accepting chattel slavery; dismissal premature

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (alteration or decontextualization of quotations can be actionable falsity)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (public-figure fault standard: actual malice)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (Erie doctrine on state substantive vs. federal procedural law)
Henry v. Lake Charles American Press, 566 F.3d 164 (Fifth Circuit standard for reviewing Article 971 dismissals)
Lozovyy v. Kurtz, 813 F.3d 576 (Article 971 standard: courts may not weigh evidence or resolve credibility)
Block v. Tanenhaus, 815 F.3d 218 (prior Fifth Circuit guidance in this litigation)
Price v. Stossel, 620 F.3d 992 (context can create a jury question on falsity when broadcast decontextualizes hypothetical statements)
Sassone v. Elder, 626 So. 2d 345 (La. law: consider entirety of statement; court decides capacity for defamatory meaning, jury decides perception)