Draper developer David K. Mast and Salt Lake County Commissioner Brent Overson didn't mince words during their high-profile clash over the South Mountain golf course project in 1996.
Mast complained that the county's plan to spend $7.9 million to buy a 280-acre golf course site in the Draper foothills was a waste of taxpayer money. Then he and his group, Concerned Taxpayers of Utah put it in writing.They took out a full page ad in Salt Lake newspapers, denouncing the "scam" and attacking Overson. "S.L. County Commissioner Brent Overson Misleads the Public and Continues to Violate State Law!" the ad declared.
Overson responded with a press conference during which he accused Mast of assassinating his character for personal gain. He said Mast was upset because the South Mountain residential and golf development was competition.
And in a later interview with the Deseret News, Overson called the Concerned Taxpayers of Utah a "ruse," "strictly a front for David Mast." He also said the group's newspaper ad was rife with "bare-faced lies."
Based on those and other fighting words, Mast filed a $1 million libel lawsuit against Overson in 3rd District Court. After Judge William Thorne dismissed the action in August 1997, Mast appealed.
On Thursday, the Utah Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Thorne's ruling, finding more good than bad in the heated exchange between the citizen activist and the public official.
"The discourse between Mast and Overson is commendable for demonstrating why 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open,' " wrote Judge Gregory K. Orme for the three-judge panel.
According to the appeals judges, Overson's comments were not legally defamatory largely because of the context in which they were made. They cited a 1992 Utah Supreme Court opinion -- West vs. Thomson Newspapers -- that held that an audience is less likely to form personal animus toward an individual disparaged in the heat of a political battle.
The same principle of context applies in the Mast-Overson battle, the judges said.
"In colloquial terms, Overson's statements would necessarily be taken with a grain of salt," Orme said. "Indeed, when responding to a personal attack such as 'Overson Misleads the Public,' the expectation that the statements would be exaggerated is even higher, thereby reducing further the likelihood that Overson's response would cause personal animus towards Mast on the part of the audience."
Mast had argued that Overson's prepared statement and later comments to reporters suggested criminal conduct and impeached his honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation. While Mast is correct that some of the terms Overson used could be defamatory in certain contexts, they are not defamatory in the context of a political debate on a public issue, Orme said.
In a footnote, the appeals judges noted Mast's "near inability" to point to concrete ways in which Overson's comments had damaged his reputation.
"Indeed, his ability to draw such a strong reaction from Overson and the media is likely to help, not hurt, his efforts at gaining support from like-minded individuals and to solidify his reputation as an effective community activist," the court said.
The county's proposed financial deal for the golf course project fell through last year, and developers then sold a 50 percent stake in the course to another party.