Environmental Planning And Information Council v. Superior Court

36 Cal. 3d 188 (1984)

Facts

Detmold (P) sued D and several of its officers. D published a newsletter criticizing P's editorial policies on environmental matters and calling upon readers of the newsletter not to patronize businesses that advertise in P's newspapers. P sued D for intentional interference with economic relationship and libel. P sought injunctive relief and both punitive and compensatory damages. D's newsletter stated in part: 'The western county areas are flooded by the Foothill Times, a newspaper that doesn't deserve to be called one. This is the rag that played a major role in last November's election of George Gribkoff and John Smith. Since then it has continued to ignore established facts, print inaccuracies, and blatantly editorialize in its 'news' articles.' D then urged its readers:  'What about contacting businesses advertising in the Foothill Times and requesting that they discontinue that advertising? Freedom of speech is one thing; vicious, irresponsible journalism is another, and perhaps you would prefer not to patronize businesses that advertise in such a publication.' D also attached to the two-page newsletter was a list of eighty nonclassified advertisers in two issues of the weekly newspaper. At the top of the list, the newsletter cautioned, 'This is not a blacklist! No condemnation of these businesses is implied! This list is merely for your convenience should you wish to contact Foothill Times advertisers.' D eventually moved for a summary judgment to protect D's First Amendment Constitutional rights. Ds claimed they never actually organized a boycott, that even if they had, such an act was privileged. The court granted a preliminary injunction barring D from 'interfering or inducing others to interfere' with P's contractual relationships with its advertisers or customers. D sought 'reconsideration and clarification' of the injunction and the court dissolved the injunction. D's motion for summary judgment was denied. D then sought a writ of mandate and/or prohibition commanding the court to set aside the order denying the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal denied the petition and this court granted a hearing and issued an alternative writ to consider the questions thus posed.