In a case between two Dallas media parties, the Tyler Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order denying the defendants’ TCPA motion to dismiss and remanded for a determination of attorney’s fees.
The case, Steven Monacelli and the Dallas Weekly, Inc. v. Montgomery J. Bennett and Dallas Express Media, Inc. D/B/A The Dallas Express (No. 12-22-00044) arose from a defamation suit brought by Bennett against Monacelli and Dallas Weekly for an article Monacelli wrote describing Bennett’s acquisition of Dallas Express. According to the article, Dallas Express had been a Black newspaper in Dallas from 1892 to 1970 but had in recent years been used by the Chicago-based Metric Media News, which, the article states, “owns hundreds of such bogus news sites all across the country, which are known in the industry as ‘pink slime.’” Bennett acquired the Express, the article goes on, to publish conservative opinions. The article further opines that the Express was an example of a “pay-to-play” news site “funded by wealthy individuals with clear political agendas,” including “right-wing propaganda.” Bennett sued for libel and libel per se, objecting to the characterization of the Express. Defendants moved to dismiss under the TCPA. The district in Henderson County denied the motion. Defendants filed an expedited interlocutory appeal.
The court of appeals reversed. Commencing its analysis with First Amendment principles regarding the protection of opinion on a matter of public concern, the court observed that § 73.005, CPRC, provides an affirmative defense in an action against a newspaper or other periodical or broadcaster for “accurate reporting of allegations made by a third party regarding a matter of public concern.” This privilege, however, does not extend to false statements of fact (citations omitted). As Bennett did not dispute that the TCPA applied, the burden shifted to Plaintiffs to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of their claims. The court, however, skipped this step because it found that Defendants had established defenses as a matter of law, specifically that: (1) the statements in Monacelli’s article were about matters of legitimate public concern; (2) the statements fell within § 73.005’s defense for accurate reporting of third-party allegations on a matter of public concern; and (3) in the context of the article, the term “right-wing propaganda” was a statement of protected opinion and not objectively verifiable fact. Having established these defenses as a matter of law, Defendants were entitled to dismissal and sanctions.
There is little question that the court of appeals got it right. This situation is exactly what the TCPA is for: to protect a media outlet from a lawsuit (particularly by the rich and powerful) brought to silence its truthful reporting on matters of public concern and having an opinion about them.
