The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that an op-ed writer's column in the Union Leader about racism and education is not defamation. The lawsuit against journalist Robert Azzi was brought by a Hanover parent, Daniel Richards who objected to anti-racism curriculum in his child’s school district. Azzi described him in a 2021 op-ed as “disseminating white supremacist ideology.”
Azzi and his attorney, Mike Lewis, spoke with NHPR Morning Edition host Rick Ganley about their case. Lewis is an attorney at Rath, Young and Pignatelli, an NHPR underwriter. We cover them just like any other institution.
NHPR reached out to the plaintiff Daniel Richards' counsel, Richard Lehmann, for comment. His full statement is available below the transcript.
Transcript
Robert, this lawsuit against you and the union leader was filed in 2021. What was your initial reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the case against you?
Robert Azzi: It was such a relief. There were moments over the last couple of years when I kept thinking, you know, "When is this going to be over?" It was like this weight. And every once in a while, I'd write something and I'd rethink it. And I'd maybe want to change my language because did I want to add to the burden that I was carrying already? And it was intimidating. Thank goodness I had Mike and a pro bono lawyer because otherwise I would have folded a long time ago. And I didn't want to fold because I knew I was right, that it wasn't defamation.
Mike, as Robert said, you took the case pro bono. Why?
Mike Lewis: I'm deeply committed to the concept of free speech and liberty of the press in New Hampshire. And I think that given how opinionated we are as a state, the greatest breadth of protection is necessary to protect our traditions and our ability to speak to each other and express ourselves honestly and strongly. Robert is a unique commentator in our state. One of the few commentators of color. He's a Muslim, and he has a special perspective on American history that I think is shared by many people, frankly, but that he expresses in a way that I think is important for people to hear coming from where he comes from. And I didn't want to see that activity burdened by my profession and the expense of litigation.
Robert, your piece and this case weigh in on the debate around systemic racism and Critical Race Theory that has dominated headlines after George Floyd's murder in 2020. I wonder how you think about these debates over racism and white supremacy in education and journalism now?
Robert Azzi: I'm even more committed to these debates. I mean, there's a whole body of literature now, whether it's Kimberlé Crenshaw or Ibram Kendi or Michelle Alexander. We know what our history is. The debate is no longer, "What is our history?" The debate is how do we learn it? How do we teach it? How do we embrace it? You know, there's a wonderful commentator named Eddie Glaude at Princeton who says for too long we've just been putting a Band-Aid on our wound. And until we actually treat the source of our wound, we're not going to get better.
Mike, what do you feel will be the First Amendment implications for this case going forward? You both have talked about how there was a sort of chilling effect in the days that this case was pending. I'm wondering, what do you think the implications are going forward?
Mike Lewis: I think the implications are, at least in New Hampshire, the people like Robert, who want to continue to debate each other in the public press, will be able to do so with a greater sense of security, that they can do so bluntly and honestly. And that's very, very good, because Robert has opinions, but he's also a listener. And he will want to hear a response to his opinions, but in the right context, in the press rather than in the courtrooms. And so, at least in New Hampshire, we will, I think, continue to have a robust free debate in the press, as we have for a long time.
We're recording this on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. And I know, Robert, you wrote in a recent newsletter about this case that the Islamophobia after those terror attacks really influenced how you approach journalism. Can you tell me more about that?
Robert Azzi: I realized right after 9/11 that I had been leading a particularly privileged kind of life, in part because I hadn't been forced to embrace an identity that was just natural to me. I could live my life without saying, "I am this or I am that." But after 9/11, when I saw the reaction against Muslims and that thousands of Muslim men, in particular in New Jersey and New York, were being rounded up — not because they had done something, but simply because of their name or their religion — I felt I had a choice. I had to go on living in privilege and passing as white. Or I could identify and speak and embrace and be engaged on behalf of people understanding who these other people were. And so 9/11 was a real wake up call for me to — be who you are.
How do you think the experience of going through this whole legal process is going to influence your writing now?
Robert Azzi: It's given me a further understanding of the law and what that law was meant to be. It's not meant to be used as something abusive, but as a way of trying to bring in disparate voices. It's the public square. It's the box on the corner of Hyde Park in London. It's the place where people discuss ideas. And if you don't have people bringing in discordant ideas, then you just rely on the conventional and the traditional and the boring and we don't move forward.
NHPR reached out to the plaintiff Daniel Richards' counsel, Richard Lehmann for comment. His full statement is available below:
I don't think that the court's decision in this case moves forward the value of public discussion in a meaningful way. It gives Azzi, and others like him who go for red hot rhetoric, a green light to engage in name calling, precisely because that name calling is really nothing more than a non-verifiable opinion or a non-actionable derogatory characterization. In other words, there's no liability because the words he used lack any real meaning, yet they get published.
In another section of its decision, the court cites approvingly the idea that the term 'white supremacist' lacks precise meaning and is an inherently value-laden label that conjures up a vast array of highly emotional responses that will vary from reader to reader. So the question I think the court's decision raises is this: If those words in the context in which they were used are nothing more than a mere derogatory characterization, and one that is inherently value laden, or one that conjures a vast array of emotional responses and that the responses will value from reader to reader, then why publish it in the first place? What value does that bring to the public square or to the discussion of public issues?
All those references that the court made are just ways of saying that the words Azzi used don't have any clear meaning at all, other than just name calling. And under what journalistic standards would such an article be published in the first place? If those words are non-verifiable, they have no real meaning and publishing them is really more than an act of name calling.
It's hard for me to imagine a newspaper or radio station like yours, or anybody else who covers news, would publish a screed that consists of nothing but name calling. If those words have no meaning, then a person who writes or publishes them is not saying anything concrete whatsoever. So the next time your station is going to run a story about white supremacy or racism, or you're going to use those terms in your coverage, you aren't really saying anything unless you go to the really particular trouble of defining precisely what you mean when you do use those terms. Otherwise, it's a completely meaningless exercise in which the meaning of your story exists only in the ears of your listener, and that doesn't really inform anyone of anything.
It just turns up the temperature and provides an avenue for venting for people who want to either attract attention to themselves or make other people angry or just complain and name-call at a very high volume. It doesn't communicate anything at all, and it doesn't have any public value.
