by Alex Nuti-de Biasi, Editor, Journal Opinion

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a 2021 op-ed that said a Hanover High School parent “disseminated … white supremacist ideology” was not defamatory because it was political opinion protected under the First Amendment.

As the court summarizes, the case emerged from Grafton County where Hanover High School, in 2021, told parents that it was planning on “significant curricular changes” around “anti-racisim” and “equity.”

Parent Dan Richards, the plaintiff in the case, indicated that while the changes were “well-intentioned,” they were “deeply divisive” and “harmful to the goal of a quality education.”

Richards provided written testimony in support of legislation that “prohibits New Hampshire schools from teaching children that they are ‘inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.’”

Activist Robert Azzi subsequently wrote an op-ed, which the Union Leader published in June 2021. The entire op-ed is incorporated into the court’s 15-page decision, but the following paragraph by Azzi was central to the case:

“Desperate to stay bonded to America’s original sins of slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples, [Newt] Gingrich, Frank Edelblut, Dan Richards, Mike Moffett, Joseph Mendola, and others have disseminated, across multiple media platforms, white supremacist ideology to keep Americans from learning an unexpurgated American history from its 1619 origins alongside the dominant White 1776 narrative.”

Richards sued Azzi and the UL three months later. But the NH Supreme Court agreed with Judge Peter Bornstein of the Grafton County Superior Court that political opinion is protected speech.

“Although we have not had cause to consider whether characterizations like the terms ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ can be considered actionable under a theory of defamation, numerous other jurisdictions have considered the question … We find the reasoning of these cases persuasive. Reading the op-ed as a whole, we agree with the trial court that the op-ed merely expressed the author’s political opinions and beliefs that he individually held about the plaintiff and others not based on any undisclosed defamatory facts.”

The court went on: “Thus, we agree with the trial court that language contained within this paragraph is merely expressive rhetoric meant to convey the author’s opinion of the plaintiff’s political views and is not designed to assert factual allegations related to the plaintiff’s conduct.”

“This is a free speech win,” said New England First Amendment Coalition Executive Director Justin Silverman. NEFAC filed a brief in support of the defendants in the case. “Our democracy depends on robust and often provocative political speech about matters of public concern. Today’s ruling gives us breathing room to share those opinions without fear of being dragged to court simply because someone disagrees with what we say.”