Greenberg v. Horizon Arkansas Publications, Inc.
2017 Ark. App. 328
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daniel Greenberg, a former Arkansas state representative and 2010 state-senate candidate, sued Horizon Arkansas Publications (the Benton Courier) for libel based on four editorials by editor Kristal Kuykendall.
- Editorials (Mar 7, Mar 28, Apr 19, Apr 26, 2010) criticized Greenberg’s campaign advertising, alleged misleading statements about healthcare, campaign-support lists, use of the same address for legislative and campaign offices, and other campaign conduct.
- Greenberg met with the paper and revised a TV ad; he was later allowed to publish a guest column responding to criticisms.
- Greenberg alleged the editorials were false, defamatory, published with actual malice, and caused damage; the circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the sole issues were whether (1) there was sufficient evidence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the statements were provably false assertions of fact, and (3) Greenberg suffered damages (court did not reach damages after resolving the first two issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue that editorials were published with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) | Greenberg: Kuykendall’s hostility and alleged inadequate investigation show circumstantial evidence of actual malice | Appellees: Evidence shows Kuykendall investigated, believed statements, and hostility alone does not prove actual malice | Held: No material question of fact; evidence insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard for actual malice |
| Whether challenged statements were false, defamatory, and provable facts (vs. protected opinion/hyperbole) | Greenberg: Statements (esp. “appears to be a violation of Arkansas campaign ethics”) implied factual assertions that were provably false | Appellees: Statements were opinion, hyperbole, and appeared on opinion page with disclaimers; many assertions were not provably false | Held: Statements were nonactionable opinion/hyperbole or not provably false; no defamatory assertions shown |
| Whether investigative shortcomings (failure to contact Greenberg, reliance on opponents) convert opinion into actionable falsehood | Greenberg: Kuykendall’s methods show reckless disregard for truth | Appellees: She interviewed multiple sources, sought documents, and had basis for views | Held: Investigation was sufficient to negate reckless-disregard inference; no clear-and-convincing evidence of serious doubt |
| Whether case should proceed to trial on damages if falsity/malice not established | Greenberg: Sought to proceed to prove damages | Appellees: Trial unwarranted absent malice and provable falsity | Held: Court need not address damages because plaintiff’s defamation claim fails on malice and falsity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (mens rea standard: knowledge or reckless disregard; circumstantial proof is permitted)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (statements of opinion not actionable unless implying provable false facts)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (public-figure standard requiring actual malice)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (distinction and treatment of public figures in defamation law)
- Faulkner v. Arkansas Children’s Hosp., 347 Ark. 941 (factors for determining whether a statement implies provable fact)
- Coody (Thompson Newspaper Publ’g, Inc. v. Coody), 320 Ark. 455 (hostility/circumstantial evidence insufficient absent clear-and-convincing proof of malice)
- Southall v. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc., 332 Ark. 123 (elements of defamation claim)
- Fuller v. Russell, 311 Ark. 108 (awareness of probable falsity standard)
- Bomar v. Moser, 369 Ark. 123 (summary-judgment standard in Arkansas)
- Meadors v. Still, 344 Ark. 307 (viewing evidence on summary judgment)