Criminal Defamation Statute Is Declared Unconstitutional

State v. Turner, Minn.Ct.App., 5/26/2015.  In a pique of anger at his former girlfriend, C.M., Mr. Turner posted ads on Craigslist which purported to be from C.M. and her minor daughter S.M.  As a result of the contents of these ads, about which the court modestly declines elaboration, a bunch of guys called C.M. and S.M. seeking to have sex with them.  The state charged Mr. Turner with criminal defamation, Minn.Stat. 609.765, subd. 2:

Subdivision 1. Definition. Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.

Subd. 2. Acts constituting. Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

Mr. Turner said that this statute, which dates back to the 1890’s, is overbroad and thus violates the First Amendment and the state constitution’s counterpart.  The state conceded that the statute was overbroad but thought that it could by saved by a narrowing construction.  The court concludes that the statute is overbroad because it does not exempt truthful statements from prosecutions and as applied to matters of public concern does not require the state to prove “actual malice” before imposing liability.  The court also declines the state’s invitation to narrowly construe the statute because to do so would require that the court either write in an “actual malice” mental state or construe the statute to include this mental state.  Such a rewrite, the court said, “would constitute a serious invasion of the legislative domain.”