## Facts

- Reader’s Digest Association published an article stating that a political committee had hired Sidney S. Grant as its legislative agent and that Grant “but recently was a legislative representative for the Massachusetts Communist Party.”
- Grant, a Massachusetts lawyer, alleged the statement was false and malicious.
- Grant alleged the publication conveyed that he acted on behalf of the Communist Party and implied he sympathized with its aims and methods.
- Grant sued for libel seeking damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the publication was reasonably capable of being understood to imply that Grant acted for, and sympathized with, the Communist Party.
2. Whether, under New York defamation law, a statement that exposes a person to hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy, or shame among some segment of the community is actionable even if not discrediting to “right-thinking” people.
3. Whether dismissal on the pleadings was proper where a jury could reasonably find the words defamatory.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded.
- The court held a jury could reasonably interpret the statement to mean Grant acted on the Communist Party’s behalf and was generally sympathetic to it.
- The court held the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim because the publication could be found to expose Grant to contempt or ostracism in at least some circles.
- The court treated the alleged falsity as assumed at the pleading stage and concluded the district court improperly resolved a jury question as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- In defamation, a court first asks what meaning a reasonable jury could attribute to the words, including reasonable implications drawn from context.
- An innuendo cannot enlarge the natural meaning of the published words; it cannot add a defamatory meaning not reasonably supported by the text.
- Under New York law, words may be defamatory if they tend to expose a person to hatred, contempt, scorn, obloquy, or shame.
- A publication need not be discrediting to all, or to most, “right-thinking” people; reputational harm among a substantial segment of the community may be enough if the charge carries an element of discredit or disgrace.
- Whether words are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning is generally for the jury when a defamatory construction is plausible; borderline cases should not be disposed of on the pleadings.

## Conclusion

The court held that calling a lawyer a legislative representative of the Communist Party, with the implied suggestion of sympathy for its aims, could reasonably be found defamatory under New York law by exposing the plaintiff to contempt in some part of the community, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Grant v. Reader’s Dig. Ass’n, 151 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1945)