Court Opinion

ID: 9530807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:03:46.378782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:15.326020
License: Public Domain

CORCORAN, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The Constitution of the United States tells us that:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Const. amend. I. The Arizona Declaration of Rights provides that:
Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 6. The Declaration also provides that:
The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good, shall never be abridged.
Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 5.
In this case, English, a Republican-elected member of the Arizona House of Representatives, is sued by Yetman, a Democrat-elected member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, for defamation. The facts are adequately set forth in the court of appeals’ opinion and dissent.
The dispute arises out of a proposed zoning change that might have diminished the value of land owned by members of English’s audience, the Pima County Republican Club. English was asked his opinion of the proposed zoning change and whether he believed Yetman was behind the proposal. English gave a lengthy answer, during which he asked rhetorically:
What kind of communist do we have up there that thinks it’s improper to protect your interests?
This puerile generic invective has spawned a tempest in a teapot. English did not accuse Yetman of being a member of the Communist Party U.S.A., Communist Party U.S.S.R., a Marxist-Leninist, a Maoist, or anything of that kind. The statement by English is no more defamatory than the following retort would have been:
What kind of fascist do we have down there that thinks it’s improper to protect the common good?
This comment does not refer to alleged membership in'the National Socialist Party or of being a Brown Shirt, or a Black Shirt. By using this example, I do not imply that politicians should attempt to equal or exceed their adversaries in political denigration, but only to point out that the converse statement is equally as innocuous.
This kind of juvenile vituperation has been and is epidemic in politics. The law of defamation, however, should not be used to impose a code of conduct on unruly politicians in an attempt to elevate their discourse. This obnoxious hyperbole, unfortunately, is here to stay.
The majority reverses and sends this case back for yet another trial. To allow this lawsuit, which is here being reviewed by the third level of the judicial system, to start all over again is to permit the misuse of principles of defamation to intimidate and flog political opponents. I agree with my colleague, Justice Cameron, and with Judge Livermore, who dissented in the court of appeals. The complaint should be dismissed.