Neish v. Beaver Newspapers, Inc.
581 A.2d 619, 18 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1251, 398 Pa. Super. 588 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Newspaper articles that accurately report on the public conduct of a public official, and editorials that express opinions based on those disclosed facts, are not capable of a defamatory meaning. Such publications are privileged under the First Amendment and do not support claims for false light invasion of privacy or tortious interference with a contract.
Facts:
- Clarence D. Neish was appointed as solicitor for the borough of Aliquippa.
- Over a nine-week period, the Beaver County Times published five news articles and one editorial concerning Neish's performance in his public role.
- The articles reported on Neish's contentious appointment, his absence from several public council meetings, and his stated plan to provide legal opinions only in writing to avoid being misquoted by the press.
- One article reported on a town mayor's challenge to the legality of a decision for which Neish had provided a supporting legal opinion.
- Another article recounted a council member's dissatisfaction with Neish's absences and a subsequent, unsuccessful vote to remove him from his position.
- The editorial characterized Neish's proposal to limit his advice to written form as 'thumb[ing] his nose' at the council and suggested he be replaced.
- Neish contacted the newspaper to request corrections regarding the reporting, but the newspaper refused to print them.
- Following the series of publications, Neish resigned from his position as borough solicitor.
Procedural Posture:
- Clarence D. Neish filed a multi-count complaint against Beaver Newspaper, Inc., and several of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County (a state trial court).
- The complaint alleged defamation, invasion of privacy (false light), and interference with a contract.
- After the discovery phase, the defendants (Beaver Newspaper, et al.) moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Neish's claims.
- Neish, as the Appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are newspaper articles and an editorial that accurately report on a public official's conduct at public meetings and offer opinions based on that conduct capable of a defamatory meaning?
Opinions:
Majority - Popovich, J.
No, the newspaper articles and editorial are not capable of a defamatory meaning. A communication is only defamatory if it harms a person's reputation in a way that would lower them in the community's estimation. The court determines as a matter of law whether a publication is capable of such meaning by assessing the impression it would create in the mind of an average reader. Here, the news articles were substantially accurate accounts of public proceedings, which are protected by the First Amendment even if they are 'annoying or embarrassing' to the subject. The editorial was a protected expression of opinion based on disclosed, non-defamatory facts. Furthermore, Neish's 'false light' claim fails because as a public figure, the reporting on his official duties was not 'highly offensive to a reasonable person.' Finally, the tortious interference claim fails because the newspaper's reporting was privileged, and Neish did not prove the publications caused the termination of his contract, especially since he voluntarily resigned.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal protection afforded to the media when reporting on the official conduct of public figures. It illustrates the high bar public officials must clear to sustain claims like defamation and false light, distinguishing between unprotected defamatory falsehoods and protected, albeit critical, reporting and opinion. The case solidifies the principle that the press serves a vital function in scrutinizing governmental affairs, and this function is privileged even if it results in negative publicity for an official. Future cases involving media criticism of public officials will look to this decision to affirm the media's broad First Amendment protections against such tort claims.
