Dall v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 19 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2457-63. |
| Parties | Curtis B. DALL, Plaintiff, v. Drew PEARSON et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John Donovan, Washington, D. C., for defendants Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson.
William R. Glendon, Washington, D. C., for defendant The Washington Post Co.
The defendants in an action for libel move for summary judgment, claiming that the alleged defamatory statement is true and also constitutes fair comment.
The alleged defamatory statements are contained in an article written by the individual defendants, who are popularly known as columnists, and published in a newspaper called The Washington Post. The article purports to summarize and refer to testimony that had been given by the plaintiff before a Congressional Committee. The plaintiff claims that the summary and the comments on the testimony are so distorted and inaccurate as to constitute libelous statements. The Court disagrees and has reached the conclusion, on the basis of a comparison of the testimony and the article, as well as the oral and written arguments of counsel, that the account given of the testimony in the newspaper column is substantially true and that the comments made by the writer of the column are, as a matter of law, within the scope of fair comment. As was indicated in an opinion by Judge Edgerton in Sullivan v. Meyer, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 367, 141 F.2d 21, these matters may be disposed of as questions of law by the Court if the showing of the truth is clear and if the characterizations are obviously fair comment.
It is stated in the article that the plaintiff proceeded into an anti-Semitic diatribe and attacked the Jews. It is claimed in his behalf that his testimony was not anti-Semitic and not an attack on the Jews. Obviously, he had a perfect right to criticize any group in the community, — any religious or racial group. This is a part of his rights under the First Amendment. If he criticized or attacked any group, however, he has no just cause for complaint if somebody said that he did.
It is claimed in his behalf that his testimony before the Committee cannot be reasonably construed as being either anti-Semitic or as an attack on the Jews, because he attacked "political Zionist planners for absolute rule via a one-world government", without using the word "Jews", and also that he did not attack all Jews but only those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
...of libel suits against media defendants that have characterized it as racially prejudiced or anti-Semitic. See, e.g., Dall v. Pearson, 246 F.Supp. 812 (D.D.C.1963), aff'd, C.A. No. 18, 414 (D.C.Cir. Oct. 22, 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 965, 85 S.Ct. 1108, 14 L.Ed.2d 155 (1965) (libel suit......
- O'BRIEN v. Paddock
-
Griffin v. Clemow
...noted columnist, the court said that 'the account given of the testimony in the newspaper column is substantially true.' Dall v. Pearson, D.C., 246 F.Supp. 812, 813. II The second special defense alleged that the article constituted fair comment. The plaintiff demurs by stating that fair co......
-
Clark v. Pearson, Civ. A. No. 710-62.
...to the same effect in Pauling v. News Syndicate Co., 335 F.2d 659, 663. The instant case is distinguishable in principle from Dall v. Pearson, D.C., 246 F.Supp. 812, in which this Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In the Dall case the publication was unambiguous and......