PHOENIX - The Arizona Supreme Court ruled today that a newspaper cannot be sued for publishing a letter that suggested American soldiers in Iraq should respond to attacks on them by killing Muslims at nearby mosques.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Pima County Superior Court judge's ruling in the case from Tucson and ordered that the lower court dismiss the lawsuit accusing the Tucson Citizen newspaper of distressing residents by printing the letter.
The letter "does not fall within one of the well-recognized exceptions to the general rule of First Amendment protection for political speech," Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for the court in Citizen Publishing Co. v. Miller.
Two Tucson men had filed a class-action lawsuit against the Gannett Co. newspaper on Jan. 13, 2004, over a letter printed on Dec. 2, 2003, as deadly attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq mounted.
The letter prompted some fearful Tucson Muslims to keep their children home from religious schools and resulted in letters of protests from readers and a published apology by the Citizen, which also sent staff members to meet with members of a local mosque.
In a Dec. 6, 2003, column apologizing for the newspaper's decision to print the letter, Publisher and Editor Michael A. Chihak said the letter's author had written a second letter to clarify that his comments only referred to military actions in combat zones.
The Citizen argued in its appeal that the case put at risk the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in robust political debate. Without any immediate physical threat to anyone, publication of the letter is constitutionally protected, the appeal added.
The plaintiffs argued the newspaper's decision to publish the letter crossed the line and was not constitutionally protected because it was a direct call to violence that could extend to American Muslims.
Judge Leslie Miller of Pima County Superior Court last year granted the Citizen's request to dismiss an assault count in the original lawsuit but allowed the lawsuit's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to stand.
"Clearly, reasonable minds could differ in determining whether the publication of the letter rose to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct," Miller wrote.
The Citizen first appealed to the state Court of Appeals, but a three-judge panel voted 2-1 against hearing the appeal.
Pretrial fact-finding in the case was put on hold during the appeal to the Supreme Court.