Court denies 'participation' status in defamation suit

The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that Utah's Citizen Participation in Government Act, also known as the Anti-SLAPP Act, does not protect a former American Fork publisher from a 2000 defamation suit filed over a heated City Council race.

However, the justices also found the original defamation suit that publisher B. Brett Bezzant sought to defend himself against lacked legal merit and upheld its dismissal.

The near-decadelong legal battle started when two men announced their candidacy for City Council in American Fork. Resident William T. Jacob took issue with the two candidates, one who served as a health insurance consultant and the other who worked as a part-time EMT for the city. Jacob contended their candidacy violated a 1992 city ordinance, which he claimed prohibited city employees from running for City Council.

According to the ruling issued this week, Jacob took out an advertisement in Bezzant's American Fork Citizen the day before the election talking about the apparent conflict of interest. Bowing to pressure from city officials, Bezzant published an emergency flier of his own, responding to Jacob's claims, calling them "misinformation" and "negative campaigning." The second flier also identified Jacob as the first flier's author.

Jacob sued Bezzant, charging he was defamed. In response, Bezzant filed a countersuit under Utah's Anti-SLAPP Act, which was passed to protect citizens from retaliatory suits after making political statements and participating in the government process.

In 2004 a district judge ruled in favor of Bezzant, finding that the Anti-SLAPP Act protected his political speech. In appealing the decision, Jacob argued Bezzant's speech was not protected under the law because the speech, although political, had no direct aim to influence the legislative or executive government process.

In its unanimous ruling, the high court agreed with Jacob. "Mr. Bezzant's speech, although part of a public debate on the eligibility of candidates for office, was not an exercise of his right to influence legislative or executive decisionmaking," wrote Justice Ronald Nehring in the court's opinion. "The election notice does not expressly request that the executive or legislative branch of American Fork's government take any action."

While the first part of the Supreme Court's decision opened Bezzant to vulnerability to the defamation suit, the justices also agreed Jacob's suit had problems.

In the second half of the ruling, justices concluded there was nothing in Bezzant's statements that was false — a legal element of defamation. Justices also found there was no evidence that Bezzant acted with ill will.

"The content of the advertisement was unequivocally political. Mr. Bezzant's election notice was no less political," the ruling stated.

E-MAIL: gfattah@desnews.com