The following editorial appeared Tuesday in the Olympian newspaper in Olympia:

The state Supreme Court came up short in its ruling on a Spokane defamation case.

The nine justices reached the right decision, but they missed an opportunity to set clear defamation standards. Instead, they broke into three separate camps and left state residents with a muddle. …

The case, Mohr v. Grant, stems from a three-part series on KXLY-TV in Spokane. The televised reports focused on the prosecution of Glen Burson, a 40-year-old man with developmental disabilities who faced prosecution for trespass and harassment after he refused to leave an interior design store owned by Eliot and Louise Mohr. Charges against Burson were dismissed because he was found incompetent to stand trial.

The reporter, Tom Grant, got copies of the court file, police reports and an incident history. In his televised series, Grant accurately reported that Burson had no criminal history and no prior arrests or convictions. Grant did not mention that the Mohrs had contacted police about Burson’s previous disorderly conduct at their business or that Burson had threatened them previously. The Mohrs sued for defamation, claiming that the broadcast’s omitted material created a false impression that Eliot Mohr was a bully who assaulted Burson and pursued criminal charges against him.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reversed, and now the Supreme Court has upheld the trial court, saying the judge rightfully dismissed the case. The high court rejected Mohr’s claim that he was put into a false light because the televised report failed to mention Burson had made previous threats and been a nuisance.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander got it right in this case when he wrote, “In my view, only words can defame, and they can do so directly or indirectly. The absence of words, however, can never defame.” Justices Charles Johnson and Barbara Madsen signed onto Alexander’s written opinion.

In the middle of the court’s 6-3 decision was a trio of justices led by Mary Fairhurst. Along with Justices Richard Sanders and Susan Owens, the trio left open the possibility of defamation by omission.

That leaves the door open, and that’s not right. Justices should have slammed the door as Alexander, Johnson and Madsen did: The absence of words can never defame.