Judges’ Opinion Backs Free Speech in Campaigns

In a stirring defense of a politician’s right to sling mud, an appellate court jurist released a 17-page opinion Wednesday stating that a failed congressional candidate’s libel suit against his opponent had no place in court.

“Our constitution protects everyone--even politicians,” wrote Justice Arthur Gilbert in rejecting the lawsuit that Republican candidate Rich Sybert filed last year against Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills). Beilenson represents the 24th District, which includes portions of the western San Fernando Valley, Malibu and Thousand Oaks.

The opinion is moot in Sybert’s case against Beilenson, given that they settled the case last month and issued a joint statement carefully retracting any statements that either party found incorrect or offensive during the 1994 campaign.

But a three-member panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that the issues are of such public importance that they should offer some advice in weighing lawsuits such as Sybert’s, which can bring “a disquieting stillness to the sound and fury of legitimate political debate.”

The panel said the lawsuit should have been dismissed earlier by a lower court under a new civil procedure to knock out certain lawsuits aimed at discouraging public participation.

Sybert sued Beilenson in August, alleging that the lawmaker falsely and maliciously besmirched Sybert’s reputation in campaign brochures mailed to voters.

The mailers attacked Sybert for collecting $140,000 in private legal fees while holding a $98,000-a-year job as the governor’s director of planning and research from 1991 to 1993.

In his complaint, Sybert cited one flier that proclaimed “Rich Sybert Ripped Off California Taxpayers,” and another that said, “Rich Sybert’s record in office tainted by conflict of interest.”

The justices found that the term “rip-off” was not defamatory, but rather rhetorical hyperbole that is common in political debate.

Sybert established that there was nothing illegal or unethical in keeping his law practice while a state employee, the opinion stated.

“Nonetheless, a citizen could possess the belief that such a custom violates a higher code of ethical precepts. To charge a breach of ethics is not to charge a breach of the law. Beilenson’s accusations were statements of opinion entitled to the [free-speech] protection of the 1st Amendment,” Gilbert wrote in the opinion, which Justices Steven J. Stone and Kenneth R. Yegan concurred with.

“Hyperbole, distortion, invective and tirades are as much a part of American politics as kissing babies and distributing bumper stickers and potholders.”

Beilenson, who has decided to retire from Congress this year, declined comment Wednesday.

But Sybert, who is running against Democrat Brad Sherman this year for Beilenson’s congressional seat, took great exception to the ruling by justices he characterized as “frustrated politicians trying to get their two cents in.”