Let me post some tidbits from a key case decided not too long along in California.
States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must produce "competent evidence of actual injury" in order to state a constitutional claim for defamation arising from matters of public concern. ... (iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact
Plaintiffs complain that Rosenthal has posted to Internet newsgroups her views that plaintiffs Barrett and Rosenthal are "quacks"; that Barren is "arrogant" and a "bully"; and that Barrett has tried to "extort" her. Such statements are not actionable, because they do not contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment. As Justice Swager observed in Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4 829: "The issue whether a communication was a statement of fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the Court. In making the distinction, the courts have regarded as opinion any 'broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment,' such as that the plaintiff was a 'shady practitioner,' 'crook,' or 'crooked politician.' Similarly, in Moyer, this court found no cause of action for statements in a high school newspaper that the plaintiff was 'the worst teacher at FUS' and 'a babbler.' The former was clearly 'an expression of subjective judgment.' And the epithet 'babbler' could be reasonably understood only 'as a form of exaggerated expression conveying the student-speaker's disapproval of plaintiff's teaching or speaking style.' (Cits. omitted; 45 Cal.App.4tTh at 837-838.) To the same effect, see Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 CaJ.APP.4th 676, 691, n.5, citing cases holding that (a) referring to township clerk as "playing hide and seek" with township funds, (b) referring to William Buckley as a "fellow traveler of fascism," and (e) referring to a change of membership on public board as "sleazy sleight of hand," are nonlibelous because the comments arc phrased in vituperative terms or because the language was used in a "loose or figurative" sense. ...
"Although it may have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old witch in 1955 (Opp. 8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief" and a 'liar' in a public debate has been held to be constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole.
The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka PUSTEDAGAIN4O (C.D.Cal. 2001) 132 E.Snpp.2d E26l, 1267, A269-1270 [holding critical comments about Plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and rhetoric. Also see Gregori' v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.Sd 596, 601: "[Where potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use of epithets, fiery' rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of opinion.")
So in conclusion my Freeper friends... feel free to call HINO and Felos rats, scum, lowlifes, murderers, scoundrels, thieves, liars, etc., etc., without fear.