Skip to content

State Supreme Court knocks down criminal defamation law

Post categories

  1. Libel and Privacy

    NMU         ALABAMA         Libel         Jul 9, 2001    

State Supreme Court knocks down criminal defamation law

  • The court found that the 125-year-old statute did not require “actual malice” on the part of the speaker, which is necessary under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The Alabama Supreme Court struck down the state criminal defamation statute as unconstitutional on July 6, ruling 8-1 that the statute did not conform to guidelines set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The United States Supreme Court has held that criminal defamation statutes such as ours must require a showing of ‘actual malice,’ as defined in New York Times [v. Sullivan],” Justice Champ Lyons said in the opinion. “Alabama’s criminal defamation statute requires no such showing, and this Court, without overstepping its constitutional limitations, cannot construe the statute as if ‘actual malice’ were a requirement.”

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which filed a friend of the court brief in the case, applauded the decision.

“The decision is a victory for free speech in the state of Alabama,” Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee, said. “The court agreed with our arguments at every turn.”

In a case that resembled the plot of a John Grisham novel, Garfield Ivey, an officer of the state trial lawyers’ association, was convicted of defaming Steve Windom, now the Alabama lieutenant governor. The prosecution alleged that Ivey was part of a plot to defeat Windom in the November 1998 lieutenant governor race by paying a former prostitute, Melissa Myers, to claim that Windom was a client and physically abused her. Ivey and the trial lawyers’ association had supported Windom’s opponent in the election, Dewayne Freeman. Myers, who was soon thereafter jailed on a probation revocation, recanted her story from jail and then was released.

Ivey’s role in Myers’ story aroused the attention of law enforcement. After a Mobile County grand jury returned a “no bill” and charges were not brought, the then-newly elected lieutenant governor asked the state attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor. That special prosecutor, Tommy Chapman, presented the case against Ivey to a specially empaneled grand jury, which elected to bring charges in early 1999. Ivey was convicted of criminal defamation in June 2000.

Ivey appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, but the entire court recused itself from the case after it received all of the briefs in the case. The Alabama Supreme Court then accepted the matter.

The state high court held the 125-year-old statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a requirement of “actual malice,” that is, a knowledge of falsity of a statement made, or with a reckless disregard of the truth. The U.S. Supreme Court established the actual malice standard in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan. The requirement was extended to criminal defamation cases later that year in Garrison v. Louisiana. The Alabama statute at issue here required only that the statement be made “falsely and maliciously.”

The court refused to follow Chapman’s suggestion that”falsely and maliciously” meant the same as “actual malice.” “The terms ‘actual malice’ and ‘maliciously’ are not interchangeable,” Lyons said.

Chapman argued that the statute was “reenacted” in 1980 as part of a renumbering to the state criminal statutes and therefore enjoyed a presumption of validity because it followed the U.S. Supreme Court cases. The court disagreed and pointed to the first part of the statute which allowed punishment for speaking “of and concerning any woman, falsely imputing to her a want of chastity.”

“The fact that in reenacting the criminal defamation statute the Legislature retained this unconstitutional gender-based provision rebuts any presumption that the Legislature intended to comply with the United States Supreme Court precedents,” Lyons said.

The court next refused to construe “maliciously” to mean “actual malice.” The court said that to do so would require several decisions that “would constitute judicial legislation and would thus violate the separation of powers doctrine.”

The court also cast a suspicious eye on any use of criminal statutes to punish defamatory speech. Lyons quoted a federal appellate case that said “a strong argument may be made that there remains little constitutional vitality to criminal libel laws.”

Lyons noted that criminal defamation statutes are often wielded as swords by victors in political campaigns against their defeated foes. Ivey’s attorney, Barry Ragsdale, and the Reporters Committee both argued that such a scenario had taken place in this case.

“This case is a glaring example of an abuse of power, where the entire machinery of the State of Alabama was used for personal and political gain by a politician,” Ivey said after the opinion was released. “This was a case that should have never been brought, and that was brought in spite of the law and the facts. We must all work diligently to insure that this never happens again.”

The Reporters Committee became involved in the case because criminal defamation statutes, although rarely used, are a threat to journalists across the country. Journalists Edward Powers and David Carson, publishers of The New Observer, a small newspaper in Kansas City, Kan., are currently being prosecuted for violating the Kansas criminal defamation statute. In 1988, newspaper publisher Jim Fitts was jailed and indicted under the South Carolina statute, which was later ruled unconstitutional.

“I don’t think that the Reporters Committee’s involvement in this case as a friend of the court should be understated,” Ragsdale said. “The press in Alabama was afraid to take a stand in this case for fear of inviting the wrath of a politically powerful lieutenant governor who had already proved that he would go to great lengths to punish his critics. Only the RCFP saw the bigger picture, involving critical First Amendment freedoms.”

(Ivey v. Alabama) DB

Related stories:

© 2001 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Return to: RCFP Home; News Page

Stay informed by signing up for our mailing list

Keep up with our work by signing up to receive our monthly newsletter. We'll send you updates about the cases we're doing with journalists, news organizations, and documentary filmmakers working to keep you informed.