Court Opinion

ID: 9574582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:12.96055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:12.285897
License: Public Domain

UDALL, Vice Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :
I specially concur with the opinion of the majority that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings as indicated in the majority opinion.
I disagree, however, with the conclusion, reached by the majority that the trial court was correct in finding the editorial libelous per se. The defendants contend that the editorial is susceptible to two meanings; one libelous, the other nonlibelous, and that — if anything — the editorial is libelous per quod and as such should have been submitted to a jury for determination. I find myself in agreement with this contention and therefore dissent from the opinion of the majority that the editorial was libelous per se.
In the editorial it is stated that the plaintiff had advanced the idea of a People’s Council in Arizona to counteract the domination of special interest groups that are organized to control the legislature. The editorial quotes the plaintiff as follows:
“According to Church our legislature is ‘dominated’ by special interest groups operating from the Adams Hotel in Phoe*601nix. For this reason the legislature does not reflect the will of the majority of the people, the attorney general argues. To ‘correct’ this situation Mr. Church proposes the selection of a ‘people’s council’ which presumably, should tell the legislature what to do and how to do it. Mr. Church thinks that this ‘people’s council’ should be organized and run by Arizona’s labor unions.”
Thus, a reader of the editorial is put on ■notice in the very beginning that even "though the editorial repeatedly uses the word “Communism” in connection with the People’s Council, it is to be operated by ■an Arizona labor union. There is also more than a suggestion that the word ■“Socialism”, a non-offensive appellation, has a prominent part in the editorial; for instance, the expression: “Mr. Church’s ‘People’s Council’ idea comes straight from the writings of Karl Marx, the God of scientific Socialism and the prophet of the International Communist movement.” Again, at the close of the editorial the •question is asked: “Does Mr. Church advocate Socialism for Arizona?” “Does he advocate Communism ?”
The issues are further confused by the statement in the editorial that the “People’s Council” idea was called’various names: for instance, the first cabinet headed by Lenin was called “People’s Council of Commissars.” The Communists later used the same “Council” technique in East Europe, as well as in the Far East, including Red China, and the “People’s Council” idea was called by different names, such as, “Patriotic Councils”, “National Councils”, “Anti-Fascist Councils”; “Democratic Councils”, “Peace Councils”, etc. The various names used to describe the “People’s Council” seem to dilute the poison of the term as applied to Communism.
The majority opinion quotes the following language from Phoenix Newspapers v. Choisser, supra:
“ * * * the entire article must be considered as a whole. * * * This is true not only with reference to its exact language but in accordance with its sense and meaning under all the circumstances surrounding its publication.”
And from Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe, supra, it quotes:
“What counts is not the painstaking parsing of a scholar in his study, but how the newspaper article is viewed through the eyes of a reader of average interest.”
Then in the following paragraphs certain excerpts from the article are considered which, if read alone, would give the impression the author of the editorial was attempting to charge that Mr. Church was advocating the seizure of political power in the same manner as that used by the Communists. The editorial should, however, be taken as a whole and not confined to limited excerpts.
While the editorial does stress the idea of Communism, as it relates to “People’s Council”, still, a reader might conclude, since “Mr. Church thinks that this ‘people’s council’ should be organized and run by Arizona labor unions’ ” it was only intended to apply to a socialistic organization that would adopt one of the milder designations in describing the “People’s Council”, such as, “Patriotic Council”, “Democratic Council”, or “Peace Council”.
A publication is not actionable per se if it is reasonably susceptible of an innocent, as well as libelous consideration but is actionable in such case only upon proof of special damages.
“To be defamatory per se the letter should be capable of but one meaning. 36 C.J. 1150. The words must be of such character that the law will presume the person of whom they are written to have been damaged. Words having a doubtful meaning cannot be declared as a matter of law, to be actionable per se.” Ruble v. Kirkwood (1928), 125 Or. 316, 266 P. 252, 254. See also Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U.S. 290, 39 S.Ct. 448, 63 L.Ed. 987, 989; Becker v. Toulmin, 165 Ohio St. 549, 138 N.E.2d 391.
“A publication is actionable per se when the language used therein is susceptible *602of but one meaning, and that an opprobrious one.” Gentry v. Wagoner County Publishing Co., Okl., 351 P.2d 718, 720.
If a written publication is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning, it is for the jury to determine which of such meanings was attributed to the publication by the average reader, and it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury that such publication had but one meaning as a matter of law. Central Ariz. Lt. & Power Co. v. Akers, 45 Ariz. 526, 46 P.2d 126, 131. See also, Broking v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 76 Ariz. 334, 264 P.2d 413, 415, 39 A.L. R.2d 1382.
Reading the entire editorial, the ordinary man might conclude the editor was trying to give a summary of the doctrines of Marxism and to show how these doctrines were incorporated into the philosophy of Communism, with a strong implication that Mr. Church may be advocating Marxism or Socialism. Or, the ordinary man reading the editorial could get the impression that the editor — in a subtle, pointed way— was trying to say that Mr. Church was advocating Communism.
For the reasons stated, I have a difficult time in agreeing with the majority that this confused discussion of Marxism, Socialism and Communism firmly establishes that the editorial is libelous per se. I believe the matter should have been submitted to a jury with proper instructions, leaving to the jury the responsibility of deciding whether the allegations set forth in the editorial are libelous per se, or libelous per quod.