State Supreme Court studies ‘gut of the issue’ in libel case

The Idaho Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next few months whether two lower courts erred by ruling in favor of The Spokesman-Review in a libel lawsuit filed by the former head of Idaho’s Republican party.

Trent Clark sued reporter Thomas Clouse and the newspaper for libel, alleging Clouse misquoted him in a Feb. 2, 2001, article and took the quote out of context.

Attorney Richard Hearn told the Idaho Supreme Court on Wednesday that the quote, as published in Clouse’s article, became a “gratuitous, racist statement.”

A Kootenai County magistrate ruled in the newspaper’s favor and a district judge upheld that ruling in 2005. Clark appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the article, Clark was defending Kootenai County Republican Central Committee Chairman Bob Nonini, now an elected state representative. Clouse was writing about Nonini’s 1983 arrest for cocaine possession – charges that were later dropped.

Hearn said Wednesday that Clark and Clouse were discussing “guilt by association” and profiling of individuals. He alleged that Clouse dropped words that changed the meaning of Clark’s comment. The statement was called racially insensitive and offensive by members of Clark’s party, Democrats and civil rights leaders.

Clouse quoted Clark as saying, “You probably cannot find an African American male on the street in Washington, D.C., that hasn’t been arrested or convicted of a crime.”

Clark demanded a correction the day the story was published and issued a written statement saying he told Clouse, “You probably cannot find an African American male on the street in Washington, D.C., who that (sic) doesn’t have friends who have been arrested or convicted of a crime.”

Clark gave the Associated Press a slightly different version of the quote that same day.

Clark appealed his case to the Supreme Court after two lower courts ruled in favor of the newspaper.

Supreme Court Justice Roger Burdick on Wednesday said the “gut of the issue” was what the statement means and whether it was taken out of context.

“Tell me why the insertion of ‘has a friend who knows’ makes this statement different in term of its impact or effect?” Burdick asked Hearn.

Hearn said that including the word “friends” changes the meaning. Clark was both defending Nonini and “rising to the defense of African Americans,” he said.

Newspaper attorney Duane Swinton said the versions of the quote aren’t significantly different.

“His corrected quote isn’t any better than the one that was published,” Swinton said.

Swinton said there was nothing in the court record to show that Clouse was acting with malice.

“Clouse today believes exactly those words are accurate,” Swinton said. He said Clouse also believes the quote was used in context.

In a brief interview after Wednesday’s hearing, Clark criticized the newspaper for continuing to report on the suit.

“I’m just curious as to why The Spokesman-Review treads out into dangerous ethical waters covering itself,” he said.

He said he didn’t understand why the newspaper was reporting on the appeal prior to a ruling – unless it was an attempt by the newspaper to influence the justices.

“It would seem to me the news is the decision,” he said.

He also suggested the newspaper report the news differently.

“If we proved anything today in court, it’s that when you publish something that’s an answer to a question, your readers should know what that question is.”