LAW ARGUMENTS
Name
United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2019)
Parties
Arpaio is the plaintiff, and Zucker is the defendant alongside other defendants from CNN, Rolling Stone, and HuffPost.
Facts
The plaintiff was a sheriff at Maricopa County from 1993 to 2017. He disobeyed court orders against arresting Latinos in the county without reasonable grounds. Hence, he was charged with contempt of court and sentenced, only to earn a presidential pardon afterward. In his bid to run for Senate seat, three media houses published reports that the plaintiff alleged were defamatory. Specifically, CNN reported that he was convicted of a misdemeanor and pardoned. Rolling Stone state that he was an ex-felon before changing it to presidential pardonee. HuffPost reported that the plaintiff was sent to prison for contempt of court.
Lower Court Holding
There was no lower court decision because the case originates in the District Court.
Issue Presented
Were the reports and statements the defendants made defamatory against the plaintiff?
Holding
The District Court held that the statements were not defamatory.
Legal Principles
The defamation law applicable in the District of Columbia requires four elements. Firstly, the statement should be false and defamatory. Secondly, the statement should be published to a third party without privilege. Thirdly, the statement should be made with requisite fault. Fourthly, the plaintiff should suffer damages. Importantly, the First Amendment gives journalists the freedom to inform the public.
Reasoning
If the plaintiff had to go past the motion for dismissal of the defamation suit, he had to prove that the defendants published the statements with actual malice. There is no malice if the statements are substantially or totally true. In this regard, the CNN report was substantially true. However, the publications by HuffPost and Rolling Stone were not substantially true. The court went on to state that the mistakes HuffPost and Rolling Stone made may have not been honest have been honest, but the First Amendment gives journalists the freedom to inform the public. The plaintiff, having entered into politics, was subject to public scrutiny so that the voters can make informed decisions at the ballot.
Concurring Opinions
There was no concurring or dissenting opinions.