delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libel. A motion to dismiss the complaint was sustained. Plaintiff appeals.
The complaint alleges that defendant corporation was the owner and publisher of a dаily newspaper in Chicago, Illinois called the “Chicago Herald-American,” that defendants Lapping and Koehler were its managing editor and general manager, respectively, and that on August 11, 1947 defendants published a libelous article which reads:
NAME SUBVERSIVE LEADERS IN U. S.
Special to the Herald-American
San Jose, Cal., Aug. 11.— California American Legion executives today had taken off the gloves and specifically named persons, publications and organizations in a stinging resolution against communism and other subversive elements.
The resolution, unanimously adopted at the final state executive committee session of the legion year here, will be presented to the natiоnal organization, at the legion convention in New York, Aug. 28 through 31.
Introduced by Americanism Chairman Harry L. Foster of San Diego, the resоlution charged that “Communists and Fascists continue to threaten our cherished ideals of Americanism.”
NAME MRS. DILLING
Persons named in the resolutiоn as fostering subversive activities were: Gerald L. K. Smith, Gerhardt Eisler, Elizabeth Billing, William Z. Foster, Charles B. Hudson, Eugene Dennis, Leon de Aryan and Gerald D. Winrod.
Publications described as being subversive in character were “The Broom,” “America in Danger,” “In Fact,” “Think Weekly,” “The Cross and the Flаg,” and “Appeal to Reason.”
Organizations stamped as also on the subversive side were the “Christian Front” and the “Ku Klux Klan,” and allеged Communist front veterans ’ organizations, such as the Christian War Veterans of America, the United Negro and Allied War Veterans of Amеrica and the Columbians.
Plaintiff alleges that the foregoing article was libelous in that “name subversive leaders in U. S.” was tantamount tо charging her with a crime of sedition if not treason and that the first paragraph of the article, since she is one of the рersons named, likewise is tantamount to charging her with sedition if not treason; that the quotation in paragraph 3 charges that рlaintiff was a Communist or Fascist and charges that she has in the past threatened and will in the future threaten our cherished ideals оf Americanism; and finally she alleges that being named in the fourth paragraph as fostering subversive activities in effect charges that she is guilty of the crime of sedition if not treason. No allegations were made in the complaint showing actual malicе or special damages.
The sole question presented is whether the article complained of is libelous per sе. Characterization of a person as a Communist (Spanel v. Pegler, 160 F. (2d) 619), and as an unAmerican disciple of fascism (Holden v. American News Co.,
We think a person of ordinary intelligence should read a newspaper article, especially of the kind here in controversy, with ordinarily intelligent discrimination. It is not reasonable for an ordinarily intelligent person to ascribe to the term “subversive” standing alone the invidious meaning which plaintiff gives it in her complaint. To give thе quotation the meaning alleged would be straining the words unduly, especially in view of the unqualified use of the term “subversive” in the parаgraph naming plaintiff, and the use of the phrase “against Communism and other subversive elements,” in the first paragraph. The meaning оf the words alleged to be libelous cannot be by innuendo extended beyond a reasonable construction. Innuendoes are not available to impute libel to an article Avhich in itself is otherwise innocent. (Fulrath v. Wolfe,
In her complaint plaintiff alleges that she “is a patriotic аuthor and a lecturer on behalf of Christianity and Americanism.”
‘ ‘ One who by his activities and by written or spoken language attempts to influence public opinion in any way is subject to the free and honest criticism of his efforts by members of the public. Thus, lobbyists and other рersons attempting to influence prospective legislation, propagandists seeking public support for their causes, and various persons who participate in civic and state activities, not as office holders or candidates therefor, but merely as private citizens, are subject to the free expression of the opinion of those commеntators who honestly but disparagingly pass judgment upon their activities.” (Restatement of Law — Torts, vol. 3, sec. 610, p. 292.)
According to the аllegations of her complaint, plaintiff sought public support and patronage, thus inviting public criticism. The fact that defendаnts were reporting and commenting on a matter of public interest appears from the complaint. Hence, defеndants’ right of fair comment in a matter of public interest was properly presented for determination by their motion to dismiss, and it wаs unnecessary to plead this right as an affirmative defense. Manifestly the executive committee of the California Ameriсan Legion does not share plaintiff’s views on Americanism. In our view this expression of difference of opinion as reported in the article here complained of is not actionable per se.
For the reasons given, the order sustaining defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and dismissing the action is affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Burke and Kilby, JJ., concur.