## Facts

- Samantha James was a professional belly dancer who performed publicly and received publicity, including photographs, connected to her entertainment work.
- A Rochester newspaper published by Gannett ran a feature article about James’s career, including photographs of her in costume and quotations attributed to her.
- The article described James’s background, clientele, and approach to earning money in connection with her entertainment work.
- The article stated that she “admits to selling her time to lonely old men with money,” including “as much as $400 an evening,” and added that it was “just to sit with him and be nice to him.”
- The article quoted James as saying, “This is my business. Men is my business.”
- James alleged the article, in context, implied she sold her “body and time,” accused her of prostitution and adultery, and defamed her moral character.
- The trial court granted Gannett summary judgment dismissing the libel claim; the Appellate Division reversed; Gannett appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the article’s statements, read in context, were reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning imputing prostitution or comparable sexual misconduct.
2. Whether James’s publicity and occupation rendered her a public figure requiring proof of actual malice, and whether any constitutional standard controlled the result.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Gannett.
- The court held the article was not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning as a matter of law.
- The court disposed of the case on defamatory meaning and did not decide whether James was a public figure or whether actual malice had to be shown.

## Legal Principles

- Allegedly defamatory language must be evaluated in the context of the entire publication and as an ordinary reader would understand it.
- Courts may decide, as a matter of law, that challenged words are not capable of a defamatory meaning; if so, summary judgment is appropriate.
- Innuendo suggesting prostitution or other sexual misconduct is not actionable where the publication’s context and limiting language negate that implication.
- Where statements are not defamatory, courts need not reach constitutional fault standards applicable to public officials or public figures.

## Conclusion

Because the feature article, read as a whole, described an entertainer’s dealings with male patrons and expressly framed paid time with men as nonsexual companionship, the challenged statements could not reasonably be read to accuse James of prostitution or similar misconduct; summary judgment for the newspaper was properly granted.


James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 353 N.E.2d 834 (N.Y. 1976)