Opinion ID: 527561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: freedom of speech and state defamation law

Text: 5 Our founding fathers created a vibrant democracy, relying on virtually unregulated dissension and self-examination to provide our republic with stability and our citizens with satisfaction. In unqualified language applicable to the states, they allowed no law    abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press   . U.S. Const. amend. I. This liberty, as much as any other, has given us our self-definition. It continues to favorably distinguish the United States from most societies in the world, and it is always the vehicle by which we appreciate the past and deliberate over our future. Though the claims raised in this appeal are particular, our review is influenced throughout by the place even this one dispute occupies in our nation's interest. Our most influential leaders have commented on the importance of the right, as well as on the proper role of judges in protecting it. 6 To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a state is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence. 7 Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine    the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. 8 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 374-75, 47 S.Ct. 641, 647-48, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Thomas Jefferson once admonished us: We have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors    these are safer corrections than the conscience of a judge. Id., n. 3 (quoting Beard's report in 123 The Nation 8 (1926)). 9
10 State defamation law limits free speech to protect an individual's reputational interests. As the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states, the first amendment became increasingly viewed as a limit on state defamation law. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), established the modern rule that, even when the defendant's remarks are both defamatory and false, where the remarks are directed at a public official and related to her official conduct, the plaintiff must also prove by clear and convincing evidence that the false remarks were made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Id. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26. 11 The motivating factor in the Court's analysis was protection for criticism of public officials and speech regarding issues of political concern. The New York Times standard was constructed in light of three truths about public speech. First, false statements would necessarily occur in the course of a vigorous public debate. Second, absent protection for even false statements, destructive self-censorship would result. Third, the legal standards for defamation must protect defendants from the self-censorship imposed by threats of litigation. Id. at 271-72, 278-79, 84 S.Ct. at 720-22, 724-26. The Court felt that debate on matters of public concern should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,    [though] it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. New York Times, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S.Ct. at 720. 2 The weaker state interest in the reputation of individuals has nevertheless been accommodated; where the plaintiff is not a public figure, a different balance is struck. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776-77, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1563-64, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986); Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 343-47, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008-10, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). 12 Supreme Court decisions have created two threshold issues: first, whether the plaintiff is a public figure, and second, whether the challenged statements are allegations of fact. We begin by considering the plaintiff's status, which determines the applicable law.
13 While Price has argued his case under the New York Times standard, he is reluctant to concede that he is a public figure for these purposes. Under the circumstances, however, we do not hesitate in agreeing with the district court that Price was a public figure and that the challenged statements relate to his official conduct. 676 F.Supp. at 1510-11. 14 Price occupied a prominent role in public affairs within the Reservation. He played a substantial role in the investigation of crimes on the Reservation, including the shoot-out. While he is by no means the principal character in the book or its focus, he was the object of public notoriety over these events, having been singled out for criticism by judges and others. In addition, news accounts and editorials about this event have appeared in a variety of forums and have discussed Price's conduct. See Defendants' Exhibits nos. 35-42, 62-64, 69, 95, 96, 116, 118 (Lincoln Nebraska Journal, New York Times, The Palm Beach Post, Minneapolis Star & Tribune, San Antonio Express, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, St. Paul Press & Dispatch, Aberdeen American News, Rapid City Journal, The Los Angeles Daily Journal, People, Twin Cities Reader, Newsweek, The Washington Star, and The Nation). Serious accusations about Price have been directly made in other books. See Weyler, Blood of the Land (Everest House 1982); Brand, The Life and Death of Anna Mae Aquash (Lorimer & Co. 1978). Serious questions about his conduct have been raised by many members of Congress. Congressional Correspondence to the President, Dec. 17, 1980 (Defendants' Exhibit no. 97). 15 The challenged statements from Crazy Horse all concern the discretionary performance of Price's duties. In context, criticism of the actions Price took in his official capacity reflect on the imperatives and conduct of the F.B.I. and the government generally, implicating the type of public debate at the core of the first amendment. We therefore apply the standards set forth in New York Times. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85, 86 S.Ct. 669, 675, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966) (the public official designation applies at the very least to those    who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs.); Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394 (7th Cir.1988) (school principal), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1339, 103 L.Ed.2d 809 (1989); Gray v. Udevitz, 656 F.2d 588 (10th Cir.1981) (police officer).
16 At the outset, we must also consider whether the challenged statements are opinion and therefore absolutely protected. The separation of opinion from fact acts as a limit on government power. 17 Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. 18 Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. at 339-40, 94 S.Ct. at 3006-07; 3 see also Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 539-40 (S.D.N.Y.1917) (per Hand, J.). This is a question of law, and we have recently established how we are to proceed. Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 788 F.2d 1300 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (Janklow II ) (reversing in part, Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644 (8th Cir.1985) (Janklow I )), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883, 107 S.Ct. 272, 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986). 19 In Janklow II, we established a four-part framework for distinguishing fact and opinion, drawing on Judge Starr's plurality opinion and the concurring opinion of Judge Bork in Ollman v. Evans, supra note 3. The four criteria are tools to help us determine from the totality of circumstances whether the first amendment protects a statement sufficiently that resort to the jury is unnecessary; they are: the specificity of the statement, its verifiability, the literary context and the work's public context. This enterprise is only superficially linguistic. Ultimately, we must decide--not whether a statement in isolation is by virtue of its phrasing factual--but rather whether, when taken in context, the statement functions and would be understood as an unqualified assertion of fact rather than as an element of an opinion. Id. at 994 (Bork, concurring). In this light, fact and opinion take on special meanings, and we therefore pause and consider the four factors. Specificity 20 The precision and specificity with which an assertion is made may reflect the extent to which it actually recites specific factual events. Specificity also goes to the singularity of a statement's meaning. Where a statement or phrase is susceptible of more than one meaning, we will not presume either that the phrase means what the plaintiff asserts it does or that it is factual where it can be understood as an opinion. Letter Carriers, supra note 3, 418 U.S. at 283-84, 94 S.Ct. at 2780-81; Secrist v. Harkin, 874 F.2d 1244, 1247, 1250 (8th Cir. 1989). We do not recognize defamation by implication. Janklow II, 788 F.2d at 1304. Accord Fudge v. Penthouse Intern., Ltd., 840 F.2d 1012, 1016 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 65, 102 L.Ed.2d 42 (1988). 4 Verifiability 21 Assertions whose elements are unverifiable, including statements regarding motive, are intrinsically unsuited to serve as a basis for libel. Janklow II, 788 F.2d at 1302, 1304. Where quantification for a general assertion is impossible, allowing any fact-finder to decide its truth or falsity invites the exercising of personal dispositions regarding the contents of the statement, its author, or its subject. Ollman, 750 F.2d at 981; see also, id. at 1006-08 (discussion by concurring judges). 22 Specificity and verifiability thus function as limits on majoritarian bias and government intervention. By examining each statement for a precise core of meaning for which a consensus of understanding exists, Ollman, 750 F.2d at 979, we hope to avoid both liability conditioned on public sentiment, and putting judges and juries in the role of declaring what the truth is about disputed social issues. Literary Context 23 The third factor to be examined is the condition and tone of the work as a whole. Various considerations include cautionary or qualifying language, language or style which signals opinion, the type of publication, the location of the statement or work within the publication, and the intended audience. For example, the challenged article in Janklow II appeared in a magazine, and the magazine's generally freer style of personal expression and the article's transparently pro-Banks posture would signal the reader to expect a fair amount of opinion. Id. In Ollman, it was significant that an editorial was challenged. 750 F.2d at 986. Public Context 24 Lastly, we consider whether the statements played a role in a public debate. Where core values of the first amendment are implicated, even some false statements of fact must be protected. [I]t cannot be avoided if the political arena is to remain as vigorous and as robust as the first amendment and the nature of our polity require. Ollman, 750 F.2d at 1002 (Bork, concurring). Statements made in the course of a political debate are also more likely to be understood as opinion. Deupree v. Iliff, 860 F.2d 300 (8th Cir.1988); Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507, 508 (9th Cir.1987) (per Kennedy, J.). 25