Opinion ID: 1129262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: washington constitution

Text: Third, even assuming that the states can give greater protection to media as opposed to nonmedia defendants without violating either the First or Fourteenth Amendments, it has not been determined whether the Washington Constitution does in fact provide for such a distinction. In Dunlap, this court noted that the Washington Constitution may provide heightened protection to media defendants. Dunlap, at 534 n. 1 (citing Const. art. 1, § 5 and State v. Coe, 101 Wn.2d 364, 679 P.2d 353 (1984)). In the present case, this issue was not raised before the Court of Appeals. But that court nonetheless concluded from its evaluation of Washington case law and the footnote in Dunlap that the Washington Constitution  does provide heightened protection to media defendants. (Italics mine.) LaMon, at 657 n. 2. Such a definitive statement by the Court of Appeals is unwarranted. First, the language of article 1, section 5 is hardly unambiguous on this point. There is no differentiation between freedom of speech and press and, hence, no clear grounds for distinguishing levels of protection for comments from media and nonmedia sources. Second, the footnote cited in Dunlap goes only so far as to suggest that article 1, section 5 may provide heightened protection to the media in defamation cases. However, it was only a suggestion, was not essential to the holding in the case, and, most importantly, has never been raised in arguments before this court. Third, the special protection provided by the convincing clarity evidentiary standard has not been sought by the media defendants in this case as a state constitutional right; it is the petitioners who raise the issue on appeal claiming that the state constitution affords no such enhanced protection. To allow the language of the Court of Appeals to stand granting state constitutional protection to the media which is not granted to individual citizens of the state is highly unsatisfactory. The media defendant has not urged its adoption and this court has not been presented with any arguments using the nonexclusive criteria of State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986), or other reasons mandating heightened state constitutional protection. The media/nonmedia defendant distinction in our defamation law should be dropped. The appropriate evidentiary standard should be governed solely by the nature of the plaintiff, in the same manner that we determine which standard of liability to apply. A public figure plaintiff would therefore need to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and a private person would only need to show negligence by simple preponderance of the evidence. The status of the defendant is irrelevant. It is altogether proper to make the nature of the plaintiff the determining factor. The two basic rationales for the strict Sullivan standards are the need to promote vigorous and robust debate on matters and personalities affecting public policy and the ability of public figures to use the media to rebut false statements made about them. However, neither of these rationales is implicated when a libel suit is brought by a private person. Abolishing the media/nonmedia distinction would be consistent with recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal which have clarified the standards since our earlier cases. It would also be consistent with this court's reasoning in Taskett where it adopted ordinary negligence as the standard of fault for defamation cases involving a private person suing a media defendant. The distinction between media and nonmedia defendants is faulty and should no longer be employed. I believe that the best way forward is to take two steps back and correct our mistake. The proper standard of proof in any libel action should depend solely on the nature of the plaintiff. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). Otherwise we perpetuate a body of law under which two defendants engaged in the same conduct may suffer vastly different penalties simply because one is a member of the media and the other is not.