AMCOR Investment Corp. v. Cox Arizona Publications Inc.

Citations: 764 P.2d 327; 158 Ariz. 566; 11 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 110; 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1059; 1988 Ariz. App. LEXIS 189Docket: 2 CA-CV 88-0157

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; June 23, 1988; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of AMCOR Investment Corporation v. Cox Arizona Publications Inc., the Arizona Court of Appeals examined a libel claim stemming from a newspaper column published by Max Jennings, the executive editor of the Mesa Tribune. The column criticized the Mesa City Council's approval of a significant high-density housing project called The Crossings, which is situated beneath the flight path of military jets from Williams Air Force Base. Jennings described the project as "absolute insanity," highlighting concerns about noise pollution from the jets, which could fly as low as 1,600 feet over the proposed development. He argued that while the developer would profit from the project due to increased land value, the living conditions for future residents—particularly regarding noise and safety—were severely compromised. The column pointed to the potential psychological impacts of living in a high-noise environment and questioned the adequacy of soundproofing measures for homes and public spaces. Jennings noted that some city council members opposed the project, suggesting a lack of foresight among those in support. The court's opinion focused on whether the column's content was protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, emphasizing the implications of free speech in public criticism of governmental decisions.

Suggestions were made for local officials, including Dave Guthrie, Ross Farnsworth, Pat Blake, and Mayor Al Brooks, to visit The Crossings during poor weather to understand the impact of jet noise on potential homebuyers, which could reach 70 to 80 decibels with jets flying overhead approximately 150 times a day. Although there is a concern for quality of life in the area, the emphasis is placed on the developer's right to sell homes regardless of these conditions, highlighting a significant case of caveat emptor, where buyers must be aware of the potential downsides. The commentary critiques the lack of effective urban planning in the city, suggesting that AMCOR Investment Co. benefits financially from this situation.

In a related legal matter, AMCOR sued Cox Arizona Publications and its executive editor Max Jennings for corporate defamation based on a critical column. The trial court dismissed the complaint under a 12(b)(6) motion, ruling that the column was protected opinion under the First Amendment. The court acknowledged that while motions to dismiss should be cautiously applied, particularly regarding freedom of the press, the specific statements in the column were not actionable as a matter of law. The court affirmed that opinions hold absolute protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, emphasizing that no opinion can be deemed false and that the resolution of differing opinions should rely on public discourse rather than judicial intervention.

Courts face challenges in distinguishing between fact and opinion, particularly post-Gertz. The appellant's suggestion to leave this distinction to the jury is rejected, as it is fundamentally a legal issue. The constitutional protection of opinion is emphasized, noting no significant difference between libel and disparagement regarding this protection. The case involves a newspaper column that critiques government officials, blending evaluative and speculative statements with factual ones. Various standards have emerged to address this issue, with many courts favoring a "totality of the circumstances" approach over rigid distinctions. Context and the entire circumstances surrounding a publication are crucial in assessing the nature of the statements. The document also suggests that 'argument' can be synonymous with 'opinion' in evaluating whether the commentary aimed to persuade readers about the city council's actions. Rhetorical hyperbole is acknowledged as a significant aspect of public commentary. Lewis v. Time, Inc. outlines three factors for determining if a statement is fact or opinion: whether the words could be seen as defamatory, the context of public debate, and whether the language is interpreted as opinion rather than fact.

In Ollman v. Evans, the D.C. Circuit established a four-factor test to evaluate statements for potential defamation: (1) the common meaning of the language; (2) the verifiability of the statement; (3) the full context of the statement within the article; and (4) the broader context in which the statement appears. The Lewis and Ollman factors are seen as restatements of the same standard, applicable to different types of statements. 

In the analyzed article, it is concluded that the content is protected opinion. The statements in question do not imply illegal conduct by AMCOR but criticize the city council while paradoxically acknowledging AMCOR's profit-making efforts. While the article suggests AMCOR is neglectful of public interest, it does not allege criminal behavior, distinguishing it from cases such as Cianci and Rinaldi, which involved direct accusations of illegal conduct.

The article's statements are primarily predictions rather than assertions of past or current wrongdoing. For instance, expressing that a development plan is "absolute insanity" is considered pure opinion, and thus protected. Some statements could be interpreted as factual, such as those describing the development's location relative to Williams Air Force Base. However, even these are deemed protected as they support the overall argument of the article rather than constituting specific allegations of wrongdoing. The court emphasizes the importance of viewing these statements in context, affirming that they do not warrant different treatment from the general opinion expressed throughout the column.

Many factual statements in the column were vague and speculative, lacking verifiable support. Claims regarding residents’ potential actions against the Air Force's flight patterns were deemed argumentative. Absolute constitutional protections allow individuals and newspapers to express opinions on public issues. Although the article presented certain purported facts, these did not defame AMCOR and were largely predictive in nature. The coexistence of opinion and alleged fact in commentary does not render it actionable; distinguishing between fact and opinion is often impractical in such cases. The focus of criticism was on the city council rather than AMCOR, and the context of the column—labeled as "Commentary" and positioned on the editorial page—indicated it was an opinion piece. The article's placement and format signaled to readers that it aimed to persuade them regarding the city council's decisions on zoning and safety issues. The court emphasized the importance of protecting public debate and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, highlighting that the guidelines for determining the protection of such expressions require a balanced consideration of all factors. The case did not address whether protections under the Arizona Constitution were broader than those under the First Amendment, but assumed they were at least equivalent.