Libel suit against S-R rejected

The Idaho Supreme Court has upheld the rulings of two Kootenai County judges who rejected a libel claim former Idaho GOP chairman Trent Clark brought against The Spokesman-Review.

In an opinion issued Thursday, the Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in the newspaper’s favor.

Clark sued the newspaper and reporter Thomas Clouse, alleging he was misquoted in a Feb. 2, 2001, article Clouse wrote about legislative candidate Bob Nonini’s past drug arrest and his history as a narcotics informant.

“The publication was consistent with Clouse’s memory and notes,” Justice Roger Burdick wrote, “and Clouse stated he attempted to retain context by using the comments Clark made directly before and directly after the comment at issue – and Clark has not shown otherwise.”

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.”

Civil rights leaders, Democrats and even members of Clark’s own party decried the statement, saying it was racially insensitive and offensive.

Clark demanded a correction the day the story was published. In a written statement, he insisted he had 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 provided the Associated Press with another version of the quote that same day.

Carla Savalli, Spokesman-Review senior editor for local news, said, “We’ve stood by Tom Clouse’s reporting on Mr. Clark from the beginning and are gratified that the court affirmed our journalism by granting summary judgment on both claims – we neither defamed Mr. Clark or portrayed him in a false light.”

Clark’s attorney, Richard A. Hearn, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Supreme Court ruled that both parties in the case would have to pay their own legal fees.

“I believe the Idaho Supreme Court should have awarded attorney’s fees,” Clouse said. “No person or newspaper should have to pay for exercising the First Amendment, especially in response to someone who was accurately quoted saying something offensive.”