Desert Sun Publishing Co. v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 19 September 1979
• Citation: 97 Cal.App.3d 49,158 Cal.Rptr. 519
• Parties: , 5 Media L. Rep. 1881 The DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY, dba The Desert Sun, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent, Charles R. BLOCK, D.D.S., Real Party in Interest. Civ. 21044.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 519

158 Cal.Rptr. 519

97 Cal.App.3d 49, 5 Media L. Rep. 1881

The DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY, dba The Desert Sun, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent Charles R. BLOCK, D.D.S., Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 21044.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Sept. 19, 1979.

Best, Best & Krieger, Barton C. Gaut and Meredith A. Jury, Riverside, for petitioner

Rodney Robertson, Palm Springs, for real party in interest.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION

GARDNER, Presiding Justice.

In this case we hold that the publication of a letter, which, in substance, charges a candidate for public office with engaging in political chicanery is protected by the First Amendment.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 at page 270, 84 S.Ct. 710 at page 721, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, the Supreme Court observed that this country has "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

This "profound national commitment" encompasses the constitutionally protected right not only to make responsible, but also to make irresponsible charges against those in or seeking public office. It is an essential part of our national heritage that an irresponsible slob can stand on a street corner and, with impunity, heap invective on all of us in public office. At such times the line between liberty and license blurs. However, our dedication to basic principles of liberty and freedom of expression will tolerate nothing less. The alternative is censorship and tyranny. ¹

Our political history reeks of unfair, intemperate, scurrilous and irresponsible charges against those in or seeking public office. Washington was called a murderer, Jefferson a blackguard, a knave and insane ("Mad Tom"), Henry Clay a pimp, Andrew Jackson a murderer and an adulterer, and Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant drunkards. Lincoln was called a half-witted usurper, a baboon, a gorilla, a ghoul. Theodore Roosevelt was castigated as a traitor to his class, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a traitor to his country. Dwight D. Eisenhower was charged with being a conscious agent of the Communist Conspiracy.

Perhaps the low point in irresponsible political vilification occurred in the Cleveland-Blaine contest where an entire presidential campaign was waged on two deathless bits of doggerel based on allegations that Mr. Blaine was dishonest, and Mr. Cleveland had sired an illegitimate child "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the State of Maine," versus "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!" ²

Obviously, no rational person can approve any of the above. We merely note them as an unpleasant fact of our political background a history of rough, crude, brawling, mud-slinging, muck-raking, name-calling attacks upon those in or seeking political office. In America, one who seeks or holds public office may not be thin of skin. One planning to engage in politics, American style, should remember the words credited to Harry S. Truman "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

From this "profound national commitment" to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" political comment has evolved some rather well established standards for judging allegedly defamatory publications on the political scene.

1. Since the essence of liberty is freedom of expression in the political arena, the law recognizes the reality of intemperate, ill-considered and rash attacks upon all of us in or seeking public office. Those engaged in political debate often engage in the use of "epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 17 Cal.3d 596, 601, 131 Cal.Rptr. 641, 644, 552 P.2d 425, 428.)

2. The right to criticize involves not only the right to criticize responsibly but to do so irresponsibly. Thus, those engaged in political debate are entitled not only to speak responsibly but to ". . . speak foolishly and without moderation." (Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 674, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 1245, 88 L.Ed. 1525.)

3. A political publication may not be dissected and judged word for word or phrase by phrase. The entire publication must be examined. "A publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it." (Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U.S. 290, 293, 39 S.Ct. 448, 448, 63 L.Ed. 987.)

4. That which might be a statement of fact under other circumstances may become a statement of opinion when uttered in the political context. "An allegedly defamatory statement may constitute a fact in one context but an opinion in another, depending upon the nature and content of the communication taken as a whole." (Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 672, 680, 150 Cal.Rptr. 258, 261, 586 P.2d 572, 575.)

We turn to the instant case.

Petitioner newspaper (hereafter Sun) printed a letter authored by codefendant Bogert (not a party to these proceedings) which accused the real party in interest (hereafter Block) of political chicanery. (A copy of the letter is attached as an appendix.) Block was a candidate for office as a member of the board of directors of the Desert Hospital in Palm Springs. Block sued for libel, Sun filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. This petition followed.

A motion for summary judgment in libel actions involving First Amendment rights is an approved procedure. ". . . because unnecessarily protracted litigation would have a chilling effect upon the exercise of First Amendment rights, speedy resolution of cases involving free speech is desirable." (Good Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court,supra, 22 Cal.3d 672, 685, 150 Cal.Rptr. 258, 264, 586 P.2d 572, 578.) It takes no citation of authority to...