Opinion ID: 1510536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Communists Go Big Business to Trick U. S.

Text: The article itself is dual in that it describes first the activities of one Novick, a manufacturer, who purchases time on the radio in order to interpret the news. It further states that his press agent is a prominent and aggressive Communist; that his news interpreter is a convicted thief; that Novick himself is associated with Communists in a projected new corporation. The second portion of the article, which is by no means completely segregated from the first, deals with Spanel and his corporation and directs attention to points of similarity between the two men. Obviously, however, the article is less ingenuous in its treatment of Spanel than it is in its treatment of Novick. Novick and Spanel are compared as natives of Russia, successful manufacturers of war products, and disseminators of political propaganda. One of Spanel's newspaper advertisements in praise of Henry Wallace is described as: well expressing the attitude of some demagogues of the extreme left who regard the American citizen as a soulless lump to be fed, quartered, ordered and disciplined even as a dog. A native of Russia and an admirer of the Soviet system might be pardoned in the error. This appears to be the strongest language and the most susceptible in the entire article of a defamatory meaning, although comment is made later of Spanel's possible motives in returning some of his corporation's profits to the United States Treasury. It does not directly say that plaintiffs are Communists or tools of Communists. Defendants argue, therefore, that only by innuendo can a libelous meaning be ascribed to the article. With this we cannot agree. In the law of libel, while it is true the innuendo may not be used to enlarge the words in an article beyond their natural meaning, it may and should be used to explain the meaning of the words used in the alleged libel. Payne v. Evening American Publishing Co., 267 Ill.App. 610. From a reading of the entire article including the headline, an ordinary reader could conclude and the innuendo is that there was little difference between Spanel and Novick; that one definitely consorted with Communists; that both expended much of their corporations' profits to disseminate political propaganda; and that Spanel as a native Russian regarded his fellow American citizens with the same attitude as the Communists themselves are alleged to regard them. We must evaluate the effect rather than the form of the language as a whole, for `Positive assertion of a charge is not necessary to constitute a writing libelous; they may be made in the form of insinuation, allusion, irony, or questions, and the matter will be as defamatory as if asserted in positive and direct terms.' Maclaskey v. Mecartney, 324 Ill. App. 498, 511, 58 N.E.2d 630, 637. We conclude, therefore, that an ordinary reader could understand the article to mean that Spanel is a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. It is not for us to say whether from our interpretation of the quoted passage and the balance of the article we believe the language characterizes Spanel as a Communist or a Communist sympathizer and whether it alleges his corporation is being used by Communists, because to do so would be to usurp the function of the jury. It is sufficient that we recognize that the article is capable of two meanings, one libelous and the other not. If the words are to be interpreted in the sense in which the newspaper readers would understand them, the meaning of the article must be submitted to a jury. Where the words are ambiguous or equivocal in meaning, the question of the meaning to be ascribed to them is for the jury. Ogren v. Rockford Star Printing Co., supra, 288 Ill. 405, 413, 123 N.E. 587, 590. Defendants contend that the article in question was the utterance of political license; that a newspaper has the privilege and duty to comment editorially with respect to political issues and other matters of public interest; that when persons such as Spanel enter the arena of political discussion they cannot be heard to whine under the fury of counter-attack; that the birth of this action was founded upon the state of Spanel's thin skin. City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 139 N.E. 86, 28 A.L.R. 1368, is cited as the bulwark in support of freedom of speech. This case is clearly distinguishable because the case involved a municipal corporation and the court held that all publications against it, excepting those advocating violence, are absolutely privileged. The court concededly did not pass upon the meanings of the publications involved. By their argument of privilege defendants are setting up an affirmative defense which is not before this court on a motion to dismiss. Harkness v. Chicago Daily News Co., 102 Ill.App. 162; Spanel v. Pegler, District Court of Conn., 926 F. Supp 70. The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court.