Lexplug logoLexplug

Grant v. Reader's Digest Association

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
151 F.2d 733 (1945)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A written statement can be libelous if it subjects an individual to hatred, contempt, or scorn in the minds of a substantial part of the community, even if that segment of the community might be considered "wrong-thinking." Falsely writing that a lawyer acts as a legislative agent for, and is a sympathizer with, the Communist Party is sufficient to constitute libel.


Facts:

  • Sidney S. Grant was a lawyer residing and practicing in Massachusetts.
  • The defendant, a New York corporation, published a periodical with general circulation read by lawyers, judges, and the public.
  • An issue of the periodical contained an article which stated that Grant was hired as a legislative agent by the Political Action Committee.
  • The article also stated that Grant had "but recently was a legislative representative for the Massachusetts Communist Party."
  • Grant alleged that the statement about his representation of the Communist Party was untrue and malicious.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sidney S. Grant filed a complaint for libel against the publisher in federal court.
  • The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency in law, holding that the statement was not libelous on its face.
  • Grant, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does falsely writing that a lawyer has acted as a legislative agent for the Communist Party and is in sympathy with its aims constitute libel under New York law?


Opinions:

Majority - L. Hand

Yes. Falsely writing that a lawyer acts as an agent for the Communist Party is sufficient to state a claim for libel. The court reasoned that a jury could reasonably infer from the statement that Grant was in general sympathy with the Communist Party's objects and methods. To be libelous, a statement must subject a person to hatred, contempt, or scorn. The court rejected the defendant's argument that this effect must occur in the minds of 'right-thinking' people. It is enough if a substantial portion of the community would hold the plaintiff in disesteem, even if those people are 'wrong-thinking' for doing so. Given the political climate and public sentiment, an accusation of being an agent for or sympathizer with the Communist Party would likely expose a lawyer to such widespread disesteem, and is therefore potentially libelous.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the standard for libel by moving away from a strict 'right-thinking person' test. It establishes that a statement's defamatory nature should be judged by its effect on a significant segment of the community, regardless of the 'correctness' of that segment's views. The ruling reflects the intense anti-Communist sentiment of its era, recognizing that an accusation of association with the party could severely damage a person's professional reputation. This case solidified the principle that imputing controversial political affiliations can be the basis for a libel claim if it exposes the individual to widespread public hatred or contempt.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Grant v. Reader's Digest Association (1945) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Grant v. Reader's Digest Association