From Richards v. Union Leader Corp., decided Wednesday by the N.H. Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice James Bassett, joined by Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald and Justice Patrick Donovan (for more on the general legal principle here, which emerges from mid-1900s concluding similarly as to allegation of Communist sympathies, see this post):
The plaintiff is the father of two children enrolled in the Hanover School District …. In 2021, the district "began sending parents an increasing number of communications about [its] increasing focus on 'equity' and 'anti-racism.'" The communications indicated that the district was planning "significant curricular changes around these issues." The plaintiff was "concerned by materials that he learned were in use in the school district." While he believed the curricular changes were "well-intentioned," the plaintiff believed that the changed curriculum was "deeply divisive and ultimately harmful to the goal of a quality education and a society where everyone is treated equally."
As a result of his concerns about the district's proposed curriculum changes, the plaintiff supported "legislation that prohibits New Hampshire schools from teaching children that they are 'inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.'" The parties agree that this legislation was House Bill 544 (HB 544). The plaintiff submitted public testimony in favor of the bill.
The Union Leader published an op-ed written by defendant Azzi, titled "White supremacists reveal content of their character," and saying, among other things (I'm excerpting the allegedly defamatory statements here),
Desperate to stay bonded to America's original sins of slavery and genocide of indigenous peoples, Gingrich, Frank Edelblut, Dan Richards, Mike Moffett, Joseph Mendola, and others have disseminated, across multiple media platforms, white supremacist ideology ….
Those who favor whitewashing history—favor suppressing the grievances and rights of Americans unlike themselves—favor suppressing the franchise of citizens who don't look like them—have shown they'll lie … to protect their privilege and power ….
Plaintiff sued for defamation, but the court said that, in context, these statements would be understood by reasonable readers as statement of opinion, not of provable fact:
