Opinion ID: 607123
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: who will benefit more?

Text: 20 But one question is hard to answer: Who will benefit more from the project--GIs or veteran charity entrepreneur Roger Chapin of San Diego and Falls Church, Va., the organizer of the campaign? 21 This question is pointed, and could certainly arouse a reader's suspicion. A question can conceivably be defamatory, though it must be reasonably read as an assertion of a false fact; inquiry itself, however embarrassing or unpleasant to its subject, is not accusation. The language used cannot be tortured to make that certain which is in fact uncertain. Carwile, 82 S.E.2d at 592. 22 This question cannot be reasonably read to imply the assertion of the false and defamatory fact--pocket-lining--of which plaintiffs complain. The question simply provokes public scrutiny of the plaintiffs' activities. Voluntary public figures must tolerate such examination. 23 Benefit to Chapin does not naturally imply direct pocketing of Gift Pac sales proceeds or even dishonesty in a more general sense. As the complaint alleges, Chapin has a public reputation as an organizer of charities, and a successful Gift Pac program could benefit him insofar as the public might hold him in higher esteem. Moreover, Chapin and his wife are salaried employees of HHV, CDFA, and Project Drug-Free, and their combined income from these positions has increased steadily and substantially. 9 The revenue intake of the charities is essential to these salaries, and responsible award of raises is possible only with increasing revenues. In short, even if the question posed by Greve were construed as an assertion that Chapin benefitted financially from the Gift Pac program, the assertion would be substantially true. 24 Chapin also complains of his description as a veteran charity entrepreneur. The meaning any reader would draw is that Chapin has, for some time, organized and operated charities, all of which is true. On the other hand, the use of the word entrepreneur may be taken by the astute reader as a sarcastic hint that the reporter does not have a high regard for persons who operate non-profit charities at comfortable salaries. Nonetheless, this opinion is incapable of being proved false, and the reader is certainly free to adhere to a contrary view. 25