Scott v. News-Herald

• Decision Date: 06 August 1986
• Docket Number: NEWS-HERALD,No. 84-274,84-274
• Citation: 25 OBR 302,496 N.E.2d 699,25 Ohio St.3d 243
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: , 34 Ed. Law Rep. 243, 25 O.B.R. 302, 13 Media L. Rep. 1241 SCOTT, Appellant, v. Theet al., Appellees.

Page 243

25 Ohio St.3d 243

496 N.E.2d 699, 34 Ed. Law Rep. 243, 25 O.B.R. 302,

13 Media L. Rep. 1241

SCOTT, Appellant, v. The NEWS-HERALD et al., Appellees.

No. 84-274.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Aug. 6, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The totality of the circumstances must be examined to determine whether a published statement is constitutionally protected opinion. (Milkovich v. News-Herald [1984], 15 Ohio St.3d 292, 473 N.E.2d 1191, overruled.)

2. A public school superintendent is a public official for purposes of defamation law.

This appeal arises from the circumstances surrounding an interscholastic wrestling match and subsequent events resulting therefrom. In early February 1974, a wrestling match was held between the host, Maple Heights High School, and Mentor High School. H. Don Scott, appellant, attended the match in his capacity as then-Superintendent of Maple Heights Public Schools. During the match, a controversial call was made against the host team, and a fracas ensued which involved the crowd and both teams. Several people were injured as a result of this disturbance.

On February 28, 1974, the Ohio High School Athletic Association ("OHSAA") held a hearing on the matter, at which both appellant and Michael Milkovich, Sr., the Maple Heights head coach, testified. Following the hearing, OHSAA placed the entire Maple Heights team on probation for one year, and rendered the team ineligible for the 1975 state tournament. OHSAA also censored Milkovich for his actions during the match.

Thereafter, several parents and affected wrestlers sued OHSAA in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County for a restraining order, contending that they were denied due process. Appellant and Milkovich testified at this proceeding, as did Dr. Harold A. Meyer, the Commissioner of OHSAA. The court reversed the probation and ineligibility orders on grounds of denial of due process.

On the day following the court's order, appellee-the News-Herald published a column written by appellee-reporter J. Theodore Diadiun on its sports page. ¹ The column was entitled "Maple beat the law with the 'big lie,' " and included the words "TD Says" beneath the title. The carryover page was entitled "... Diadiun says Maple told a lie." The article alleged, inter alia, that appellant and Milkovich misrepresented the events which led to the OHSAA sanctions in an attempt to shift the blame to the Mentor team. The writer stated in the article that he had attended the match and the OHSAA hearing, and had discussed the court proceeding with Meyer. The article stated, near the end:

"Anyone who attended the meet, whether he be from Maple Heights, Mentor, or impartial observer, knows in his heart that Milkovich and Scott lied at the hearing after each having given his solemn oath to tell the truth."

Milkovich and appellant each filed a suit in libel, naming appellees and the Lorain County Journal, appellee and parent company of the News-Herald, as defendants. The suits were tried separately, with similar outcomes. A directed verdict was entered against Milkovich, while the Scott suit was dismissed on summary judgment. Both courts found, inter alia, that the article was constitutionally protected opinion. The Scott trial court further found that appellant was a "public official" for defamation law purposes, and had failed to prove "actual malice" as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, and its progeny.

The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the Scott trial court.

On December 31, 1984, this court decided the companion case of Milkovich v. News-Herald (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 292, 473 N.E.2d 1191, which held, inter alia, that the Diadiun article was not constitutionally protected opinion.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Brent L. English, Cleveland, for appellant.

Wickens, Herzer & Panza Co., L.P.A., David L. Herzer, Richard D. Panza, Richard A. Naegele, Lorain, and John J. Hurley, Jr., Painesville, for appellees.

LOCHER, Justice.

The general issue presented in this appeal is whether summary judgment was properly granted against appellant who avers he was defamed by appellees' column. Because we hold, as a matter of law, that the article in question was opinion, we find for appellees and affirm the court of appeals.

I

This case requires us to reformulate the test and standard in the context of published comment alleged to be defamatory. In Milkovich v. News-Herald, supra, this court recently dealt with the same article we examine today. For reasons to be expressed herein, we now overrule the holding in Milkovich with respect to the characterization of the article. We find the article to be an opinion, protected by Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution as a proper exercise of freedom of the press.

The federal Constitution has been construed to protect published opinions ever since the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789. The court stated in Gertz at 339-340, 94 S.Ct. at 3006-07:

"We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. * * *"

Federal and state courts alike have consistently adhered to the proposition that the free speech and press guarantees protect published opinions. See, e.g., Orr v. Argus-Press Co. (C.A.6, 1978), 586 F.2d 1108; Meyers v. Boston Magazine Co. (1980), 380 Mass. 336, 403 N.E.2d 376. Our democratic society is founded upon the freedom to voice objections concerning the status quo, and is dependent upon the interplay of conflicting viewpoints to improve itself and our justice system. See Orr v. Argus-Press Co., supra, at 1117. The United States Supreme Court has been guided by the "* * * profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open * * *." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S.Ct. at 721. The intent is to avoid self-censorship, whereby overbroad defamation standards result in the stifling of important non-defamatory material. Gertz, supra, 418 U.S. at 340, 94 S.Ct. at 3007. These ideals are not only an integral part of First Amendment freedoms under the federal Constitution but are independently reinforced in Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution which reads in pertinent part:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press."

With these principles in mind we will now review appellant's propositions of law with particularity.

II

Appellant presents three propositions of law. The first states that "[t]he superintendent of public schools in a local school district in Ohio is not a public official for the purposes of the law of defamation where he is defamed in an article that does not relate to the performance of his official duties and because the position he holds is not such that he has, or appears to the public to have, substantial responsibility for the affairs of government."

In response to this proposition we reiterate the United States Supreme Court's statement in Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966), 383 U.S. 75, 86, 86 S.Ct. 669, 676, 15 L.Ed.2d 597:

" * * * Where a position in government has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees, both elements we identified in New York Times are present and the New York Times malice standards apply."

While distinctions between public figures, public officials, and private figures can be nebulous and difficult to apply, see, e.g., Elder, Defamation, Public Officialdom and the Rosenblatt v. Baer Criteria--A Proposal for Revivification: Two Decades After New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1984), 33 Buffalo L.Rev. 579, the distinction is extremely important. See New York Times, Co., supra; Dupler v. Mansfield Journal (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 116, 413 N.E.2d 1187 [18 O.O.3d 354].

The rationale underlying the heightened standard of proof for public officials and public figures is that our society encourages uninhibited debate on the performance of public officials and on all public issues. New York Times Co., supra; Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094. Misstatements and falsehoods are inevitable in any democratic scheme of freedom of expression and debate. Any threat of liability, with regard to the expression of unpopular statements, may result in a "chilling" effect with devastating consequences to a democratic society. Private parties are not made subject to a high standard simply because they do not have the same opportunity to rebut damaging allegations as do those in the public realm.

As superintendent of a municipal public school system, appellant falls within the Rosenblatt guidelines. R.C. 3319.01 details the duties of a public school superintendent and provides that "[t]he superintendent of a [city] school district shall be the executive officer for the [school] board. * * *" Clearly, the head of a city school district has substantial responsibilities in the operation of the system. Moreover, the Maple Heights public has a substantial interest in the qualifications and performance of the person appointed as its superintendent.

Because the newspaper in which the alleged libelous statements were contained is of a local circulation, a finding of public official status is particularly strengthened. Controversial actions of a public school...