According to a decision by the N.H. Supreme Court in Richards v. Union Leader Corp., the plaintiff, the father of two children in the Hanover School District, expressed concerns about the district’s focus on ‘equity’ and ‘anti-racism’ and the proposed curricular changes. He supported legislation prohibiting teaching children that they are ‘inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.’ The Union Leader published an op-ed by defendant Azzi, accusing individuals, including the plaintiff, of disseminating white supremacist ideology. The court ruled that these statements were opinions, not provable facts, and therefore not defamatory.
The court explained that terms like ‘white supremacist’ lack precise meaning and evoke emotional responses, making them unverifiable and protected opinion. Accusations of concrete wrongful conduct are actionable, while general statements of racism are not defamatory. The op-ed expressed the author’s political opinions and beliefs without alleging undisclosed defamatory facts about the plaintiff.
When read in context, the statements in the op-ed were deemed imaginative expressions and non-actionable derogatory characterizations. The author’s claims of disseminating white supremacist ideology were seen as general opinions, not specific accusations of wrongful conduct by the plaintiff.
The trial court noted that determining whether a statement espouses white supremacist ideology is subjective and varies between individuals. The plaintiff challenged statements in an op-ed that, when read in context, were hyperbolic and did not imply actual facts. The court found that the challenged statements were expressions of socio-political opinion rather than verifiable claims. Justice Melissa Countway disagreed, arguing that the statement accusing the plaintiff of disseminating white supremacist ideology could be examined based on the information the plaintiff has published. She believed that the lack of clarity in the op-ed regarding the factual basis of the accusation warranted further proceedings to determine if the plaintiff, as a public figure, had been defamed with actual malice. The court referenced other cases to illustrate the distinction between general pejorative language and specific defamatory allegations.
In the case of 1984 (Kenneth Starr, J.), it was concluded that stating someone “is an outspoken proponent of political Marxism” is considered an opinion. Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, along with others, also agreed with this assessment.
On a different note, the Justices unanimously decided not to acknowledge the “false light” tort, which holds individuals accountable for false statements that are highly offensive, even if they are not defamatory. While most states recognize this tort, there are some exceptions. (Defamation tort is recognized in all states.)
Defendants were represented by Kathleen C. Sullivan (Malloy & Sullivan) and Michael S. Lewis (Rath, Young and Pignatelli) – not to be confused with the other Kathleen Sullivan and Michael Lewis.
