Yorty v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 15 December 1970
• Citation: 13 Cal.App.3d 467,91 Cal.Rptr. 709
• Parties: Samuel W. YORTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Otis CHANDLER, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 35021.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 709

91 Cal.Rptr. 709

13 Cal.App.3d 467

Samuel W. YORTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Otis CHANDLER, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 35021.

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

Dec. 15, 1970.

Hearing Denied Feb. 10, 1971.

Phill Silver, Hollywood, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert C. Lobdell, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert S. Warren, Gary D. Stabile, Los Angeles, for defendants-respondents.

A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R. Sperber, Los Angeles, amici curiae.

FLEMING, Associate Justice.

Libel action for $2,000,000 by Samuel W. Yorty against Otis Chandler, Los Angeles Times, The Times-Mirror Company (sued as Times Mirror Corporation), and Paul Conrad, in which plaintiff complains of a cartoon drawn by Conrad and published on the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times. The trial court ruled on demurrer that the cartoon was not defamatory and entered judgment for defendants.

The cartoon was published under the following circumstances: in mid-November 1968 Richard M. Nixon, having been elected President of the United States, was engaged in the selection of nominees for appointment to his cabinet. At a press conference Samuel W. Yorty, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, publicly expressed interest in such an appointment, and, in particular, appointment as Secretary of Defense. According to the allegations of plaintiff's complaint, President-elect Nixon was then considering Mayor Yorty for appointment to a cabinet post, and that fact was known to defendants.

On 19 November 1968 the Los Angeles Times published on its editorial page the following cartoon and caption:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The cartoon depicts Mayor Yorty seated at his office desk talking on the telephone. Four white-coated medical orderlies with doleful expressions on their faces stand beside the desk. One orderly is holding a straight jacket behind his back while another beckons to Mayor Yorty with his finger. The caption reads, 'I've got to go now * * * I've been appointed Secretary of Defense and the Secret Service men are here!'

In claiming that the cartoon was defamatory, the complaint asserts:

'In publishing said cartoon, Defendants and each of them, intended to mean and convey to the readers of the editorial page of the LOS ANGELES TIMES, that Plaintiff was claiming that he had been appointed Secretary of Defense by President-elect RICHARD NIXON, and that he was further claiming that he was qualified to serve in such capacity; and that in making such a claim, he was insane and should be placed in a straight jacket. The defendants, in publishing said cartoon, intended to insinuate to (their) readers that Plaintiff was unfit to serve as Secretary of Defense and, that in believing his was so qualified, he was mentally ill.' Plaintiff thus interprets the cartoon as a factual report that Mayor Yorty suffered from the delusion that he had been appointed Secretary of Defense and that because of his delusion he was insane and needed to be placed in a straight jacket.

The sole question is whether the cartoon is reasonably susceptible to the interpretation placed upon it in plaintiff's complaint. The trial court concluded it was not, ruled as a matter of law that the cartoon was not libelous, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.

First, some consideration of the subject matter of this suit, the political cartoon. Ever since stone-age man began to draw on the walls of his cave, caricature has been used as a device to express opinion on matters of current interest. Examples of the art of caricature in ancient Egyptian and Roman times still abound. With the advent of printing, caricature became a form of social and political commentary, and in one of its aspects began to manifest itself as critical opinion on public issues and public figures. Thus the political cartoon was born. In America the first political cartoon was designed by Benjamin Franklin, and by the time of the Civil War the political cartoon had become a standard adjunct to public life. In the 1870's Thomas Nast proved the effectiveness of the political cartoon by a devastating series of drawings which helped break the corrupt political regime of 'Boss' Tweed and the Tammany Ring. From Daumier and Tenniel to Low and Herblock the political cartoon has occupied a central position in the presentation of critical comment on events and personages of the times.

The genius of a well-conceived political cartoon lies in its ability to communicate in graphic form a statement of editorial opinion which might otherwise require paragraphs of written material to express. To say so much with so little, the political cartoonist makes extensive use of symbolism, caricature, exaggeration, extravagence, fancy, and make-believe. For example, if a federal official made a 'fact-finding' trip to a vacation spot at public expense, a political cartoonist might criticize that official's conduct by drawing a distorted likeness of the official taking money from the pocket of an unwary Uncle Sam. Because the use of symbolism in political cartooning is well-understood, the drawing would be interpreted by its viewers as editorial comment on the waste of public funds involved in the trip, and no reasonable viewer would consider it a factual report that the official had picket someone's pocket, much less that of an elderly gentleman with a wispy white beard who was dressed an an American flag.

A cartoon, of course, remains subject to the law of libel (Civ.Code, § 45), and, like any other form of depiction or representation, it may be found libelous if it maliciously presents as fact defamatory material which is false. For example, a political cartoon which falsely depicts a public official selling franchises for personal gain, or a judge taking a bribe, or an attorney altering a public record, or a police officer shooting a defenseless prisoner, will not be exempt from redress under the laws of libel merely because the charge is depicted graphically in linear form rather than verbally in written statement. (Snively v. Record Publishing Co., 185 Cal. 565, 198 P. 1; Newby v. Times-Mirror Co., 173 Cal. 387, 160 P. 233; Gloria v. A Colonia Portuguesa, 128 Cal.App. 640, 18 P.2d 87.) On the other hand, a cartoon which depicts a fanciful, allegorical, anthropomorphical, or zoomorphical scene will not be considered libelous merely because it depicts a public person as a flower, a block of word, a fallen angel, or an animal. Because a political cartoon presents critical opinion in imaginative and symbolic form, in claimed instances of defamation a court must ferret out the underlying themes of the cartoon and then determine whether these can reasonably be considered libelous. (Blake v. Hearst Publications, 75 Cal.App.2d 6, 170 P.2d 100.)

The present cartoon is said by plaintiff to have made two basic assertions: First, an assertion that the Mayor was unqualified for high national office. Second, an assertion that the Mayor, in believing he was qualified for high national office, demonstrated mental incompetency to such a degree that he required the restraint of a straight jacket. Defendants concede that first assertion and defend their right to make it. Defendants deny the second assertion and deny that any reasonable viewer would interpret the cartoon as having made such a statement.

On the first point, it is settled law that mere expression of opinion or severe criticism is not libelous, even though it adversely reflects on the fitness of an individual for public office. (Howard v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, 95 Cal.App.2d 580, 213 P.2d 399.) Here, the cartoon was published on the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times at a time President-elect Nixon was engaged in choosing nominees for his cabinet and after Mayor Yorty had publicly expressed interest in appointment as Secretary of Defense. The cartoon was a form of editorial comment on these events and pointedly expressed the opinion of the Los Angeles Times that the Mayor's view of his own political stature was so far removed from reality, that his reach for national office so exceeded his grasp, that his aspirations for political preferment so outran his qualifications, that these ambitions could popularly be described as insane, mad, or crazy. To recognize the right of the Los Angeles Times to publish an unflattering and derogatory opinion of the Mayor's qualifications for high national office at a time he was under consideration for such an appointment is not to accept that opinion as gospel writ, but merely to hold that in a free country the Los Angeles Times, like everyone else, has a right to express its views on who should be appointed to public office, even though its views are those of a political adversary and are presented in rhetorical hyperbole. (Calif.Const., art. I, § 9; Eva v. Smith, 89 Cal.App. 324, 264 P. 803; Taylor v. Lewis, 132 Cal.App. 381, 22 P.2d 569; Corman v. Blanchard, 211 Cal.App.2d 126, 27 Cal.Rptr. 327; Howard v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, 95 Cal.App.2d 580, 213 P.2d 399.) On this point we find pertinent the comments of the court in Eva v. Smith, Supra (89 Cal.App. pp. 328--330, 264 P. pp. 804--805): 'It is claimed that * * * the article was published to disparage plaintiff; its plain import being to characterize him as the type of man who should not be returned to public office. Taking the article as a whole * * * it amounts to no more than a criticism of plaintiff's qualifications for office and one which defendant was entitled to make. * * * An individual who seeks or accepts public office invites and challenges public criticism so far as it may relate to his fitness and qualifications * * * The right of criticism rests upon public policy and those who seek office should not be supersensitive or too thin-skinned concerning criticism of their qualifications * * * In so far as the articles might imply that, in the opinion...