Court Opinion

ID: 9855043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:18:36.376168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:39.212486
License: Public Domain

ROVIRA, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The majority concludes that the two letters written by Campbell are constitutionally privileged and thus, not actionable in a suit for defamation. I agree with that conclusion. I disagree, however, with the majority’s holding that Stewart’s statements to Jurgens imply a verifiable assertion of fact and could reasonably be understood as an assertion of actual fact. Accordingly, I dissent to Part IV(A) of the majority opinion. Though I think it is unnecessary to reach the question, I also disagree with the majority’s holding in Part IV(B) that Keohane presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of damages against Stewart. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part.
I
Throughout the 1980’s, Cañón City and Fremont County in general were rife with allegations of corruption and misconduct in the legal and medical professions. A district attorney for the 11th Judicial District, which encompasses Cañón City and Fremont County, was arrested for distribution of a controlled substance, and an assistant district attorney resigned while being investigated for the same conduct. In addition, it was reported that two Cañón City doctors engaged in an improper medical procedure.
Subsequently, Dr. Gallagher, an anesthesiologist at St. Thomas More Hospital, was charged with sexually assaulting an anesthetized teenage patient. Articles published in a newspaper, the Cañón City Daily Record, indicated there was evidence that Gallagher *1306had sexually assaulted his patient.1
After criminal charges were filed against Gallagher, the case was assigned to Keohane, who was then serving as a district court judge in the 11th Judicial District. Gallagher opted that his trial be to the court. Although Keohane had represented St. Thomas More Hospital from 1965-1980, he did not recuse himself. He did, however, disqualify a deputy district attorney whose wife was a hospital employee. After the prospect arose that Keohane might not be able to preside over the case due to an injury, Gallagher requested a continuance. Keohane was, however, able to preside over the case shortly after his surgery. The Canon City Daily Record, and other newspapers published these factual and procedural details regarding the Gallagher trial.
Gallagher was found not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition and was ordered to report to a state mental institution. No prison sentence was imposed. There was widespread outrage among the citizens of Cañón City concerning the verdict. A few days after the trial was completed, the citizens of the 11th Judicial District voted not to retain Keohane in office.
The specific conduct giving rise to this lawsuit against Stewart is as follows. During the Gallagher trial while Stephen Stewart, a Cañón City Councilman and spectator at the trial, was leaving the courtroom, Dwight Jur-gens, a reporter for the Canon City Daily Record, reportedly heard Stewart comment: “That’s the best judge money can buy.” While the trial was still in progress, Jurgens published an article about the trial which included Stewart’s remark.
After the verdict in the Gallagher trial was announced, Stewart approached Jurgens and twice asked Jurgens if he thought Keohane had been “paid off’ in drugs or money. These remarks were not published in the newspaper.
After the loss of his retention election, Keohane filed a defamation action against Stewart and others. His claim against Stewart for slander was based solely on the remarks made by Stewart to Jurgens after the verdict was announced. The trial court instructed the jury that Stewart’s statements constituted slander per se. The jury awarded Keohane $15,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages against Stewart. The award of punitive damages was subsequently reduced to $2,500 by the trial court.
On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that Stewart’s remarks were not constitutionally protected because “a reasonable person could conclude that Stewart was implicitly asserting as actual fact that Keohane had accepted a bribe based upon undisclosed facts known to him as a city councilman.” Keohane, 859 P.2d at 291. The court of appeals additionally held that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Keohane suffered actual damages as a result of Stewart’s comments to Jurgens.
II
Stewart argues on cross-appeal that the court of appeals erred in concluding that his comments to Jurgens are not constitutionally protected. I agree. When considered in light of the relevant factors set forth in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) and Burns v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., 659 P.2d 1351 (Colo.1983), Stewart’s remarks cannot reasonably be understood as stating actual facts about Keohane. Thus, I would hold that they are constitutionally privileged and therefore not actionable in a defamation suit.
Keohane based his defamation suit against Stewart on the following exchange between Stewart and Jurgens:2
Stewart: What do you think, was he paid in drugs or money?
*1307Jurgens: What?
Stewart: Do you think he was paid off in cash or cocaine?
Jurgens: Steve, you are a real piece of work.
The court of appeals concluded that Stewart’s comments were capable of being proved true or false. The court reached this conclusion on the grounds that:
The undisputable implication of Stewart’s question — do you think he took drugs or money? — was that Keohane had been bribed. Stewart was not questioning whether Keohane had been bribed; he was merely asking how. Thus, the connotation that Keohane accepted a bribe of money or drugs is clear from Stewart’s statements themselves, and such an allegation is capable of being proved true or false.
Keohane, 859 P.2d at 297. The majority reaches the same conclusion, with which I agree.
I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Stewart’s remarks could reasonably be understood as an assertion of actual fact.
Stewart made his comments to Jurgens shortly after the verdict in the Gallagher trial was rendered. As noted above, that verdict was unpopular and, as the evidence indicated, tended to verify the suspicions and derision felt by many in Fremont County regarding the legal and medical professions there. Thus, given the context of his statements, a reasonable listener could not understand the comments as assertions of actual fact about Keohane, but would recognize them as a figurative expression of Stewart’s dissatisfaction with the verdict. As such, the statements are nothing more than a hyperbolic and figurative expression of Stewart’s discontent and low regard for Keohane as a judge.
In this sense, Stewart’s remarks are analogous to those at issue in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). In Bresler, a real estate developer was negotiating with the city council for a zoning variance while at the same time negotiating with the city over other land that the city sought to purchase from him. A public meeting was held relating to the land purchase, and a local newspaper reported that a number of citizens characterized the developer’s tactics and bargaining position as “blackmail.” The developer sued for libel. The Court rejected the argument that the statements were actionable on the ground that given the contéxt of the speech, i.e., that it was made in the course of a heated public debate, a reasonable person would have interpreted the word “blackmail” figuratively rather than as a literal accusation that the plaintiff had committed a crime: “[E]ven the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [plaintiffs] negotiating position extremely unreasonable.” Id. at 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1542.
Likewise, in National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974), the Court considered the context of a Jack London quote defining a “scab” as, among other things, a traitor. The Court noted that the definition was published in the course of a labor dispute before concluding that a reasonable person would not have interpreted the term “traitor” to mean that the subject of the statement had actually committed treason. Rather, the Court concluded that statement was not actionable in a suit for defamation because the term could not reasonably be construed as a representation of fact, but used only in its “loose, figurative sense to demonstrate the union’s strong disagreement with the views of those workers who oppose unionization.” Id. at 284, 94 S.Ct. at 2781.
In concluding that the language at issue in Bresler and Letter Carriers was not actionable, the Court relied heavily on the fact that the statements were figurative and hyperbolic given the context in which they arose. Similarly, the context of Stewart’s comments would notify the reasonable listener that they were nothing more than “vigorous epithets,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “loose and figurative” expressions of the perceived injustice and unreasonableness of the verdict in the Gallagher trial. As such, they cannot rea*1308sonably be understood as an assertion of actual fact.
Furthermore, the broader context of Stewart’s remarks, coming shortly before Keohane was to face a retention election, supports the conclusion that they could not reasonably be construed as an assertion of actual fact. In the context of elections for public office, “hints of bribery, embezzlement, and other criminal conduct are not infrequent,” and often times constitute nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole. Carr v. Warden, 159 Cal.App.3d 1166, 206 Cal.Rptr. 162, 164 (1984) (quoting New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 n. 14, 84 S.Ct. 710, 722 n. 14, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)).3
It is also significant that nothing about Stewart’s comments themselves suggest that they were based on facts not generally known. Stewart was a city councilman for Cañón City. The court of appeals observed that “[a]s such, a reasonable person might expect him to have knowledge of the affairs of local government unavailable to the general public.” Keohane, 859 P.2d at 297. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to believe that Stewart was not privy to undisclosed information concerning state judicial officers. He was not, after all, a member of the police department investigating alleged criminal activity nor did he occupy a position responsible for overseeing the judicial officers of the 11th Judicial District. Thus, his position as a public servant is not particularly relevant with regard to whether a reasonable person could believe that he had knowledge of undisclosed information concerning Keohane, and nothing in the comments themselves suggest any awareness of such information.
The majority concludes that a reasonable person could have believed that as a councilman, Stewart’s remarks were based on implied assertions of fact that were not disclosed in his comments. Remarkably, the majority reaches this conclusion on the grounds that “[w]hen a city councilman speaks with a reporter, a reasonable person could believe that the question is based on defamatory facts ‘which the reporter has not disclosed to the audience but which the audience can reasonably expect to exist.’ ” Maj. op. at 1303. The question here is not whether Jurgens, the reporter, had undisclosed information relating to Stewart’s remarks. The question is whether Stewart’s remarks themselves imply a factual predicate undisclosed by those remarks. That is to say, Jurgens’ knowledge is entirely irrelevant to evaluating Stewart’s comments. Moreover, Jurgens was the audience here, and there was no other audience which could reasonably have believed that Stewart’s comments were based on undisclosed facts known to Jurgens.
Finally, the medium through which these comments were communicated must be taken into account, Burns, 659 P.2d at 1360, particularly because the spoken word may convey a different meaning than written words.
Because a court must examine the entire context of a publication, the court should also consider dramatic intonations by the announcer in determining whether the broadcast conveys a defamatory meaning. Television [like all speech] touches more senses than does the print media, and the standard for finding defamation cannot be woodenly applied without taking into account the kind of medium by which the message was delivered.
White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 526 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citations omitted). For this reason, it is critical to recognize that the reasonableness of understanding these remarks as assertions of actual fact depends in part on the inflection with which they were uttered. For instance, if they were spoken with the inflection of a statement, it is easier to interpret them as an assertion of fact that Keohane had been bribed and raising the question only of the form of that bribe. If, however, Stewart made his remarks with the inflection of a question, the reasonable interpretation of the remarks is simply that of an *1309inquiry regarding whether Jurgens thought Keohane had accepted either drugs or money in the Gallagher trial.
Of course, reading Stewart’s remarks does not reveal the inflection with which they were spoken. Given this limitation, and recognizing that the reasonable understanding of the remarks turns in part on that inflection, we are faced with a difficult task. In light of this dilemma, it seems appropriate to consider Jurgens’ interpretation of Stewart’s comments, as he is the only person who actually heard them.4 To the extent that his understanding of those remarks may reveal the inflection with which they were spoken, they are relevant in determining how a reasonable person would have understood them. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563, cmt. c (1977) (“It is not enough that the language is reasonably capable of a defamatory interpretation if the recipient did not in fact so understand it.”).
Jurgens testified that he had not “the slightest clue” of what Stewart meant by his remarks. He further testified that he did not take the remarks seriously and stated that he “never knew” when Stewart was being serious or just saying something for effect. In his sworn affidavit, Jurgens stated that after sharing Stewart’s remarks with two other newspaper employees, “[t]he three of us just shook our heads at what we considered Councilman Stewart’s foolish remarks ....”5 Thus, Jurgens, the only person who actually heard Stewart’s remarks, did not understand what they meant, did not take them seriously, and regarded them as foolish.6 In short, Jurgens did not understand the remarks as an assertion of actual fact about Keohane. In my judgment, this interpretation is relevant under the facts of this ease in determining whether Stewart’s comments reasonably could be understood as an assertion of actual fact. See Sigmon v. Womack, 158 Ga.App. 47, 279 S.E.2d 254, 257 (Ct.1981) (in order to effect the publication of a libel, there must be a reading of it and an understanding of its meaning by the person reading it).
The phrasing of Stewart’s comments, when considered in context, as well as Jurgens’ interpretation of those remarks, lead to the conclusion that they could not reasonably be understood as an assertion of actual fact — as a matter of law.7 Accordingly, I conclude *1310that Stewart’s remarks are constitutionally privileged.
Ill
Though I do not think it necessary to decide whether sufficient evidence was presented on the question of damages to sustain the jury’s award given that Stewart’s comments are constitutionally privileged, I am compelled to state my disagreement with the majority’s resolution of this issue.
Ironically, after emphasizing at length the need and importance of protecting the reputation of defamed persons — the raison d’etre of defamation law — the majority concludes that Keohane presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of damages in spite of the fact that absolutely no evidence was presented that Keohane’s reputation had been harmed as a result of Stewart’s comments to Jurgens. To the contrary, Jurgens, the only person who heard Stewart’s comments, testified that they in no way changed his favorable opinion of Keohane.8 The only evidence of damages presented by Keohane was that after learning of Stewart’s remarks to Jurgens, he felt “worse” than he had before. In my opinion, this is insufficient as a matter of law to support an award of damages.
In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that the decision of whether emotional harm alone is compen-sable in a defamation action is to be left to state law. This conclusion was premised on the recognition that defamation is a creature of state common law and, in light of other constitutional safeguards, restrictions on emotional damages were unnecessary to protect First Amendment liberties.
Since that decision, several states have refused to allow recovery for emotional harm in the absence of a showing of reputational damages. See, e.g., Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. v. Dodrill, 281 Ark. 25, 660 S.W.2d 933 (1983); Gobin v. Globe Publishing Co., 232 Kan. 1, 649 P.2d 1239 (1982); France v. St. Clare’s Hospital and Health Center, 82 A.D.2d 1, 441 N.Y.S.2d 79 (App.1981). In addition, a number of legal scholars have concluded that allowing damages for emotional harm alone poses a significant threat to free speech, particularly when permitted to function as the equivalent of presumed damages. See, e.g., W.Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts 844-45 (5th ed. 1984) (“The law of defamation has been developed primarily for the protection of the reputational interest. This being so, it would appear to be somewhat anomalous to permit a plaintiff to recover actual damages without [showing] actual harm to his reputation, based either on a presumption or proof of such harm.”); Rodney A. Smolla, The Law of Defamation § 9.06 (1994); David A. Anderson, Reputation, Compensation, and Proof, 25 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 747 (1984).
As the majority has recognized, damage to reputation is the essence of a defamation action. Maj. op. at pp. 1297-99. See also Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 275, 91 S.Ct. 621, 627, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971); Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 408 F.Supp. 1219, 1233 (D.Colo.1976). As such, courts have recognized that the harm that the defendant’s speech has caused to the plaintiffs reputation is critical. Bolduc v. Bailey, 586 F.Supp. 896, 900-01 (D.Colo.1984) (“The gravamen of an action for defamation is the damage to one’s reputation in the community....”) (quoting Gobin, 649 P.2d at 1243).
This is particularly true in an action involving a public official or speech concerning an issue of public concern. The Supreme Court has observed on several occasions that hurt feelings are an inevitable risk of public office and do not outweigh the compelling interest in free speech. As Justice Powell noted,
[a]n individual who decides to seek governmental office must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs. He runs the risk of closer public scrutiny than might otherwise be the case.... [TJhose classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the fore*1311front of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.... [T]hey invite attention and comment.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3009, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). It is inevitable that such comments will not always be “reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to ‘vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks’.” Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51, 108 S.Ct. 876, 880, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) (quoting New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720-21, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)).
In my judgment, permitting public officials to recover damages solely for emotional distress in a defamation action will result in a chilling of speech and discouragement of public debate. Knowing that they can be sued for nothing more than hurting the feelings of public officials, citizens will be more likely to remain silent on issues of public interest. Such an outcome clearly is contrary to the value placed on vigorous political debate and the principles which the First Amendment is intended to further.
The majority, however, concludes that a showing of emotional harm is itself sufficient to support an award of damages in an action for defamation on the grounds that “[ejlaims for damages for emotional distress are inherently difficult to prove with certainty, to rebut, and to evaluate.” Maj. op. at 1305. In my opinion, the fact that proof of emotional distress is difficult lends no support for the rule adopted by the majority. This observation is irrelevant to the question of whether such a showing alone is sufficient to support an award of damages in a suit for defamation. The fact that such harm is difficult to rebut, however, supports my conclusion.
Shifting the focus of a defamation action from an objective assessment of reputational harm to a highly subjective inquiry into the plaintiffs emotional state poses a considerable risk that a claim which is, in truth, not worthy of compensation, will be compensated. Without having to prove harm to reputation, a plaintiff could prevail and be awarded significant damages based on nothing more than self-serving testimony of hurt feelings, personal humiliation, and mental anguish— particularly in light of the fact that such harm is, as the majority recognizes, so difficult to rebut. See The Law of Defamation at § 9.06[5][b].
The point clearly is illustrated by the facts of this case. Keohane was awarded $20,000 in damages against Stewart based on his testimony that Stewart’s comments made him feel “worse” than he had before. How could such testimony be rebutted by defendant? To allow the jury verdict to stand on the basis of such vague, unsubstantiated, and self-serving testimony is contrary to the very reason for defamation law — the protection of reputational harm, and will encourage litigation intended to assuage “hurt feelings” at the expense of free speech liberties.9
*1312I would hold that the requirement that a public official plaintiff in a defamation ease show actual damages, see maj. op. at 1304, cannot be fulfilled by showing only emotional harm. Harm to reputation must be established. As commentators have pointed out, permitting plaintiffs to prove actual damages merely by testifying as to their emotional distress defeats the purpose of requiring a showing of actual harm:
Because self-serving testimony of personal humiliation and mental anguish will almost always be available to the plaintiff (and in most cases, the testimony will be genuinely sincere) those states that permit emotional distress standing alone to support an award of actual damages for defamation are in truth virtually eliminating proof of “actual harm” as a meaningful barrier to a plaintiffs’ recovery.
The Law of Defamation at § 9.06[5][b]. See also Prosser & Keeton at 844; Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. at 475 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. at 975 (“It seems clear that by allowing this type of recovery the State had subverted whatever protective influence the ‘actual injury’ stricture may possess”) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
Permitting evidence of emotional harm alone to establish actual damages effectively eviscerates the actual damages requirement and in so doing, poses such a threat to First Amendment liberties that I cannot join in its adoption. Accordingly, I conclude that Keo-hane failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of damages.
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to say that Justice LOHR and Justice MULLARKEY join in this concurrence and dissent.

. It was stated in the press that: Gallagher had destroyed his scrub suit before the crime was reported to the police; DNA testing revealed that the chances were one in 4.7 billion that someone other than Gallagher committed the assault; and Gallagher confided in another doctor and asked him not to reveal the crime.

. This account of Stewart's remarks is taken from Jurgens' testimony on direct examination at trial. Stewart denied having made the comments.

. The majority states that because “Stewart made his remarks to a reporter who had previously published the prior statement, 'That's the best judge money can buy',” this fact "indicates that a reasonable person would be aware of the accusations of bribery underlying the defamatory question.” Maj. op. at 1304. I fail to see why the objective, reasonable person would necessarily be a reader of the Canon City Daily Record, and would have read Jurgens’ prior article.

. In considering Jurgens' understanding of Stewart’s remarks, I do not suggest that the subjective understanding of the recipient of an allegedly defamatory statement is dispositive as to that statement's reasonable meaning, nor do I imply that such a subjective understanding will always be relevant. Rather, I conclude simply that under the facts of this case, Jurgens’ interpretation of the comments should be considered and, based on the other considerations detailed above, support the conclusion that Stewart's remarks cannot reasonably be understood as an assertion of actual fact about Keohane.

. Oddly, the majority seeks to discount the significance of Jurgens' understanding of Stewart’s remarks on the grounds that "in determining whether Judge Keohane was defamed, the critical inquiry is not the meaning Jurgens gave to the questions. The statement is defamatory if Judge Keohane is prejudiced in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.” Maj. op. at 1303 n. 14. Be that as it may, the question here is not whether Keohane has been defamed but rather, whether Stewart’s comments are constitutionally privileged.

. Jurgens’ affidavit also states that he was unable to characterize the comments as being said in jest, in an accusatory manner, or in a conversational tone because he could never tell if Stewart was saying something for effect or because he sincerely believed it.

.The majority correctly states the law when it recognizes that "whether the statement is constitutionally protected is a [question] of law Maj. op. at 1304, n. 15 (citing Milkovich). Oddly, however, the majority also states that under the Milkovich test, we should not "substitute our interpretation of the evidence [for that of the trial court’s] absent an erroneous determination.” Id. Not surprisingly, the majority cites no authority for this latter conclusion.
Questions of law are reviewed de novo by this court, and no deference is owed to the trial court’s "interpretation of the evidence.” See Bloomer v. Board of County Comm’rs, 799 P.2d 942, 944 (Colo.1990), rev'd on other grounds, Bertrand v. Board of County Comm’rs, 872 P.2d 223 (Colo.1994) (appellate courts need not defer to trial courts when reviewing questions of law). Moreover, it simply does not make sense to say that we should not substitute our interpretation of the evidence for that of the trial court’s unless the trial court’s legal conclusion is wrong. The only way for a reviewing court to decide whether a trial court incorrectly determined whether a statement is constitutionally privileged is to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

. It goes without saying that the subsequent publication of those remarks resulting from Keohane bringing this lawsuit cannot form the basis for concluding that Keohane’s reputation has been damaged as a result of those statements.

. One need not go so far as to imply that emotional harm is, in and of itself, not worthy of compensation in light of the risks it imposes on free speech liberties. To the contrary, the point is simply that suits seeking damages solely for emotional harm should not be brought as defamation actions but should be pursued as actions for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts at 845.
Colorado law permits a plaintiff to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress upon a showing (1) that the defendant engaged in "extreme and outrageous" conduct; (2) that the defendant intended to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress (or acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's emotional state); and (3) the plaintiff did in fact incur severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct. CJI — Civ.3d 23:1 (1989). One reason for requiring a plaintiff to show outrageous conduct and severe suffering is to eliminate trivial claims. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts at 56. Likewise, a plaintiff may prevail in an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant placed the plaintiff in fear of his own safety, and the plaintiff suffered "physical consequences or long continued emotional disturbance" as a result. CJI-Civ.3d 9:3. These stringent requirements are imposed in recognition of the fact that claims for emotional distress are easy to claim but difficult to verify or rebut.
As such, a defamed plaintiff seeking compensation for emotional distress would not be rendered helpless as a result of the rule I espouse but rather, would be required to prove the elements of the actual tort alleged. To hold as the majority does not only imperils free speech, it converts the law of defamation into a weak-kneed surro*1312gate for claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.