Opinion ID: 2637103
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defamation, the public interest privilege, and Olivit's claims

Text: Olivit contends that because there were genuine factual disputes, it was error to dismiss his defamation claims against the Empire. To make out a claim for defamation, a plaintiff has to establish (1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) the existence of either `per se' actionability or special harm. [14] A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him or her. [15] Under the Alaska Constitution, a defamatory statement may be conditionally privileged if it concerns a matter of public interest. We have stated that there is a paramount public interest permitting persons to speak or write freely without being restrained by the possibility of a defamation action. [16] Therefore, speech on matters of public safety is privileged, but . . . this privilege is conditional and can be lost if the plaintiff proves that the speaker uttered untruths with actual malice. [17] Unlike the majority of courts, we follow the rule that the privilege [of public discussion] extends to non-malicious misstatements of fact. [18] Thus, to make out a claim for defamation based on speech about a matter of public interest, a plaintiff must show that the false and defamatory statements were made with actual malice. [19] Actual malice exists when it is proved that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. [20] We have applied this standard to both publishers [21] and government speakers. [22] Olivit asserts that three passages in the Empire's story defamed him and are actionable: one regarding his history with the city, another about an incident at the middle school involving his children, and another regarding his plea of guilty to a misdemeanor. History with the city. The article quotes Hartle as saying that the city was looking into Olivit's accusations but that it was skeptical, based on [Olivit's] history with the city. We assume Olivit is alluding, at least in part, to this statement when he notes on appeal that the article states that I had a violent criminal history with the city. In his initial verified complaint Olivit stated that he maintains no history with the City of Juneau. (Emphasis in original.) Olivit's children. Olivit states that his children are not criminals as stated in [the] article. Olivit is apparently referring to the article's statement that Olivit's previous suit against the city grew out of an April 26 incident at Floyd Dryden Middle School involving Olivit's two sons, the older one taking money for the younger one, a student there. In his verified complaint in the case now before us, Olivit stated that [t]he Olivit children were not involved with any criminal activities. In his sworn response to the CBJ's motion for summary judgment, Olivit stated that in fact his son was attacked by a school administrator while engaged in running an errand for his mother by delivery [of] money to his younger brother who attended Floyd Dryden. Misdemeanor guilty plea. The article states that Olivit pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault following the incident at Floyd Dryden Middle School. [23] The Empire admits on appeal that this is incorrect because Olivit entered a guilty plea to misdemeanor disorderly conduct rather than assault. [24] Olivit might be referring to this error when he objects to what he describes as the article's statement that he had a violent criminal history with the city. Because Olivit stated in his verified complaint that he never pled guilty to misdemeanor assault, [25] we assume that Olivit is arguing that he was defamed by the article's misdescription of the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty. The article about Olivit generally concerns matters of public interest. A claim that the JPD was harassing members of the public, as Olivit asserted in his lawsuit against Officer Comolli and the JPD, is a matter of public interest because it raises questions about the propriety of official or ostensibly official conduct of JPD officers. Furthermore, Olivit's repeated lawsuits adversely affected the city, especially fiscally, and the financial effect of defense costs is a matter of public interest. And the city attorney's description of lawsuits against the city and his description of the plaintiff in those suits is a matter of public interest. Events at a local middle school that lead to criminal charges and a civil lawsuit are also matters of public interest, as are criminal charges and guilty pleas relating to local events. Therefore, each of the article's three challenged statements is conditionally privileged and not actionable unless it was false and defamatory and uttered with actual malice. [26]