West v. Thomson Newspapers
23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097, 235 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 872 P.2d 999 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Utah Constitution, statements of opinion are protected from defamation claims, and a statement is deemed an opinion if a four-factor totality of the circumstances test shows it is not objectively verifiable as true or false, especially when made in an editorial context about a public official.
Facts:
- Terry R. West, the mayor of La Verkin, Utah, was the subject of several editorial columns in the local newspaper, The Daily Spectrum.
- A column by Rick Guldan asserted that West changed his position on a hotly contested municipal power issue, stating West had opposed it while campaigning but supported it after being elected.
- The municipal power issue was a central topic in the mayoral election, and many residents based their votes on the candidates' positions.
- After West complained and provided a letter showing his pre-election support for the issue, Guldan published a second column stating West had at least created the "illusion" he was opposed to it.
- Several months later, a column by managing editor Brent Goodey accused West of making "repeated...attempts to manipulate the press."
- All columns at issue appeared on the newspaper's editorial or op-ed page, accompanied by the author's byline and photograph.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry R. West sued The Daily Spectrum's publisher Donald Hogun, editor Brent Goodey, and reporter Rick Guldan for defamation in a Utah trial court.
- The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the claim regarding the 'manipulation' statement, finding it was not capable of a defamatory meaning.
- On a subsequent motion for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the claims related to the 'change-of-position' statements, holding they were protected opinion under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
- West, as appellant, appealed the dismissals to the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on most grounds, holding that the statements were potentially defamatory and not protected opinion.
- The defendants, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the Utah Supreme 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:
Do statements in newspaper editorial columns that imply a public official intentionally misled voters to get elected constitute protected expressions of opinion under the Utah Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, Justice
Yes, the statements are protected expressions of opinion under the Utah Constitution. The court first found that the statement accusing Mayor West of attempting to "manipulate the press" was not defamatory as a matter of law. Viewed in the context of a newspaper editorial about a politician, the phrase is rhetorical hyperbole and non-actionable criticism, absent any assertion of illegal conduct. For the statements implying West misled voters about his position on municipal power, the court established a new analytical framework. Adopting a 'primacy model,' the court analyzed the issue under the Utah Constitution before considering federal law. It held that Article I, sections 1 and 15 of the Utah Constitution provide an independent and robust source of protection for expressions of opinion. To distinguish fact from opinion, the court adopted a four-factor totality of the circumstances test from Ollman v. Evans. Applying this test, the court concluded that the core defamatory implication—that West intentionally deceived voters—concerns his subjective motivation and is therefore not capable of being objectively verified as true or false. This, combined with the fact that the statements were made in an editorial column about a public official during a political debate, compelled the conclusion that they were protected opinion.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing the 'primacy model' as the method for constitutional analysis in Utah defamation law, requiring courts to resolve claims under state law before reaching federal constitutional issues. It also provides robust, independent protection for expressions of opinion under the Utah Constitution, distinct from the First Amendment. By adopting the four-factor Ollman test, the court created a clear framework for distinguishing protected opinion from actionable fact, thereby offering strong protection to media defendants for political commentary and criticism of public officials.
