or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public. From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So.2d 52, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Mixed expression of opinion occurs when an opinion or comment is made which is based upon facts regarding the plaintiff or his conduct that have not been stated in the article or assumed to exist by the parties to the communication. Id. Thus, a statement is not protected as pure opinion if it implies the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts as its basis. LRX, Inc. v. Horizon Assocs. Joint Venture, 842 So.2d 881, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So.2d 444, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 (1977)); see also Madsen v. Buie, 454 So.2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). In addition, if the “facts” upon which the
recognizing a distinction between pure opinion which does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts and mixed opinion which implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it holding that plaintiffs failure to notify attorney of receipt of right to sue letter and failure to confirm that the attorney had received the letter did not warrant the application of equitable tolling holding that courts must examine the facts surrounding the publication the context in which the statements were made and the nature of the language used holding that the trial court did not err in precluding crossexamination of police officer as to statements made during an internal police investigation because the purpose for which such testimony was sought was pure speculation which has no support in the record holding that statements made in a letter to the editor regarding a psychologists behavior modification techniques were not pure opinion because the letter might reasonably be understood to imply the assertion of undisclosed facts