Illinois Court Rejects Claim for Group Libel of Poles Living During World War II Era

People may be able to successfully sue based on allegedly false and defamatory statements about themselves, or about very small groups of people that include themselves—but not based on statements about whole countries or ethnic groups.

From Otto v. Chicago Public Media, Inc., decided Friday by the Appellate Court of Illinois, in an opinion by Justice Mathias Delort, joined by Justices Freddrenna Lyle and David Navarro:

The factual allegations of the complaint, which we take as true for the purposes of this appeal, are straightforward. Plaintiffs alleged that in 2021, defendant Neil Steinberg wrote an article published in the Chicago Sun-Times. The piece contrasts Black History Month with recent Polish governmental censorship of certain historical perspectives of atrocities committed against Jews in Poland in World War II. The key language in the article at issue in this appeal reads:

"Poland has a long history of anti-Semitism. It was anti-Semitic before World War II…. During the war, while there was certainly heroism — the unprepared Polish Army did charge German tanks on horseback — there was widespread collaboration in the form of killing off Jews, including my grandfather's entire family and his brother Zalman. The above paragraph is true, and the whole truth is far worse. Poles were killing Jews after the war, out of habit, when they tried to return to their villages."

In response to this piece, plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint which contained detailed factual allegations of brave and valiant acts taken by Poles to fight against Nazi Germany and prevent the genocide of Jews in World War II. Count I was a claim for defamation per se, focusing on this sentence: "[P]oles were killing Jews after the war, out of habit, when they tried to return to their villages."

The plaintiffs alleged that they lived in Poland during World War II and did not take part in any atrocities against Jews. In fact, they claimed, they witnessed Poles taking heroic actions to help Jews during that time. Accordingly, they contend, Steinberg's article defamed them in their roles as Polish nationals living in Poland during the relevant time period. The second count was a claim of false light based on the same operative facts….

Under Illinois law, to state a defamation per se claim, a plaintiff must present sufficient facts establishing that: (1) the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff; (2) the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) the publication caused damages…. Here, the plaintiffs take issue with the statement's generalized notion of Polish people…. [But] we cannot construe Steinberg's generalizations to specifically [be about] the three named plaintiffs. The article does not mention them anywhere. Unlike the cited cases dealing with publications referring to a very small discrete group of persons, the article refers in general terms to an entire nation of millions of people. Therefore, plaintiffs did not state a valid defamation per se claim under Illinois law….

[T]he article did not refer to emigrants from Poland who grew up in Poland during World War II, and it does not mention the city of Chicago in any context, other than in the name of the newspaper itself on the masthead. Accordingly, we struggle to find exactly how a reader could connect a historical article that deals with Poland, Polish internal politics, and potential atrocities after World War II, as specifically referring to three local Polish emigrants out of a pool of millions of potential actors….

This court has [also] held … that where the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for defamation per se, the false light count must fail as well….

We have no reason to doubt the plaintiffs' claim that they did not personally participate in atrocities committed in Poland against Jews in World War II. We also recognize that they take great offense at the assertions Steinberg made in his article. Historical conflicts have not only villains, but heroes, as well.

Historians, and those who comment on history, often make generalizations about nations involved in those conflicts. These generalizations emanate from the writer's creative expression and the need for brevity. In adopting this writing style, an author does not individually impugn each citizen of a nation for brutal actions taken by their government.

In fact, as illustrated by the case law cited above, a tort claims so grounded would undoubtedly be barred by … the First Amendment ….

Comments

[Archibald Tuttle]

Can a whole class of people be the plaintiff in a defamation case?

Can the males on this planet sue the feminists for defamatory remarks about males?

Sounds crazy to me.

[loki13]

It sound crazy, because it is crazy. Identification is a required element in a defamation claim.

[Ed Grinberg]

You think this is crazy? How about a criminal prosecution along the same lines (conviction upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court!):
Beauharnais v. Illinois

[Nige]

The counter-suit would be a doozy.

[loki13]

The opinion is obviously correct.

The more interesting question I have is … what attorney filed this (or was it pro se)? This is something that, I assume, we all learn the first year of law school. Defamation doesn’t lie without identification, and while you might be able to make a claim if it’s a small and identifiable group, “Poles living in the 40s” isn’t that.

Not only should this not have been appealed, it seems sanctionable as a frivolous claim (depending on the Illinois requirements for same). IMO.

[Ridgeway]

I had the same reaction and figured the plaintiffs must have been pro se and somewhat sympathetic.

It is hard to believe a lawyer would have filed this and appealed. On the other hand, a lawyer recently appealed a denial of QI where the (a) statute in question had been held unconstitutional in the courts. and subsequently repealed, and (b) the cop in question had been specifically told this by the DA.

[bevis the lumberjack]

An angry Jewish lawyer who vehemently agrees with the plaintiffs might do it pro bono.

It’s a shitty thing to say even though it’s clearly the writers 1A right to say it. I took a brief look at the guy’s history and apparently he’s quite the asshole. He’s got a conviction for spousal abuse - slapped his wife while he was on the phone with 911 trying to get the cops out to stop an episode of abuse.

[loki13]

Being an (allegedly) crummy person who says things you disagree with doesn't absolve attorneys of refusing to file frivolous claims.

....and this was a frivolous claim. Nothing to do with the First Amendment, either. It just cannot be defamation, by definition.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree about the claim, although my sympathy is with the Poles. And I wasn’t defending the filing. Just speculating as to why an attorney might file it in the first place. More or less agreeing with ridgeway’s main point with a speculative answer as to his why.

[loki13]

I know, but regardless of sympathy, this case is completely frivolous, and we should never condone it.

Look, imagine someone said, "Women suck." Or, "Men suck." That might be a terrible thing to say, but it can never be actionable.

They could also say, "The Yankees suck," but in that case, truth is an absolute defense.

[bevis the lumberjack]

On that last point we can all agree.

[bernard11]

my sympathy is with the Poles.

Could you explain why? The statements in question are certainly true as a general matter, even if they don't apply to the specific plaintiffs.

[Savagely Average]

Weird point that probably only I would probably fixate on, but it also annoyed me that the ‘positive’ thing the columnist says about the Poles repeats the myth that the Polish Army attacked German Panzers with cavalry armed with lances and sabers.

That, and the canard that the German army "destroyed the Polish air force on the ground" early in the war, both originated with Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine. They were picked up by U.S. media - even guys who usually knew better like William Shirer believed them - and have been incredibly enduring. They were pretty much the only “facts” I was taught about the Poles’ efforts to fight Germany in my high school history class in the 1990s.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Neil Steinberg needs to take a look at which country has the most people recognized in the Righteous Among the Nations and get back to us.

After the war, Poles were in a situation where they were probably pretty pissed after years of occupation and face the prospect of many more years of occupation by a country that had stood aside and watched the Polish Resistance get crushed by the Nazis. For 40+ years they weren’t encouraged to be themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Neil Steinberg needs to take a look at which country has the most people recognized in the Righteous Among the Nations and get back to us. "

You need to take a look at where the largest 1939 Jewish population lived.

Poles had more opportunities to be "Righteous" but largely failed.

[grb]

The number of European countries with an honorable record protecting Jews during WWII can comfortably fit on one hand (with fingers to spare). Italy was pure chaos as always, but its people and authorities were pretty damn good about sheltering Jews. Denmark was absolutely stellar. Bulgaria and Albania were pretty good, but with them you're already seeing countries distinguish between their citizen and non-citizen Jews.

Poland was a mess: Some good and a lot of bad.

[bernard11]

Let me say,

"Amen, Bob."

And the anger Poles felt after the war did not justify killing Jews. Do you (Bevis) really not understand that?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Hey, Bob! Here with your daily dose of friendly sunshine!

Say, help me out. Is there was something that was happening in Poland between 1939 and 1945 that might have made it more difficult for Poles to help out Jews? Something about some outsiders that were hanging around? Putting the Jews where they were sorta hard to get to?

And you're a proud American. How many Americans ended up on the list? It's 7. And only one American soldier.

That soldier wasn't an Ohioan. He was a Tennessean, like me. By your standards, my people are better than yours.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are the one who justified Polish post war anti-semitism by reference to the number of Righteous Among the Nations. They have more because of the greater number, not because of any greater virtue.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Yeah, I was definitely justifying anti-semitism by pointing out a fact. And look! One guy took the bait!

I mean, there are no other factors that could have influenced someone’s opportunity to help Jews beyond headcount. Hell, everyone knows that.

Shouldn’t you be back a couple of articles fighting for The Messiah?

[Bob from Ohio]

"After the war, Poles were in a situation where they were probably pretty pissed after years of occupation and face the prospect of many more years of occupation by a country that had stood aside and watched the Polish Resistance get crushed by the Nazis. "

You are saying that post-war anti Jewish acts by Poles are excused because Poles suffered too.

[Brancron]

It is completely disgusting the way people have tried to foist blame for the Holocaust and WWII atrocities against Jews from the Germans onto the Poles. The Nazis murdered nearly 6 million Poles. They literally had plans drawn up prior to the start of the war to literally annihilate Warsaw (along with its inhabitants), among many other things. The level of atrocity deliberately inflicted on Poland and its people is so far beyond that experienced by any other European country that it's beyond comparison of any sort. If Anne Frank had lived in Warsaw rather than Amsterdam, she would never have written a diary because her, as well as literally everyone else within several miles' radius, would have been shot and bombed and burned to death right from the get-go. OK, I'm done ranting.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Here, here. Have you ever gone and randomly read any of the stories of what those among the Righteous did? Especially those in Nazi occupied territories? The stones those people had, including the Poles, are just humbling to read. I dare say that few, if any, on this board would have had that level of courage.

I’ve been to Auschwitz/Birkenau and seeing it in person demonstrates that it was so much worse than you think you know it was. And the camp that was made famous by its accurate representation in Schindler’s list was in Krakow. The Poles were heavily represented in those places.

And don’t let my snark above diminish the actions of the American soldier honored. He saved 2-300 Jewish prisoners in a POW camp with a Nazi held pistol up against his temple. Never said a word about it when he came home. His act wasn’t discovered until his son found references to it after he died.

The Poles were shit on by the Germans, then they were screwed by FDR and Churchill declining to send in expected help when the Warsaw uprising started.

Questioning how the Poles finished that perosnd afterward isn’t fair.

[Ridgeway]

"The Poles were shit on by the Germans, then they were screwed by FDR and Churchill declining to send in expected help when the Warsaw uprising started."

Mmmmmm ... Not sure what you expected the US and England to do at that point. It was Stalin who encouraged the Aug 1944 Warsaw uprising, and then intentionally held back his forces, allowing the Polish leadership (along with the rest of the participants) to be killed.

England and France did royally screw the Poles in 1939. The alliance's plan was for the Poles to hold out until the British and French could mobilize and counterattack. The Poles did their part and held out for more than a month, inflicting approx. 44,000 German casualties. Britain and France sat on their hands, though, despite the fact that Germany left the border virtually undefended.
As an aside, Churchill did not become PM until 1940, although he was First Lord of the Admiralty during the Polish campaign.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not much. Apparently somehow the Poles, having fought brilliantly in things like The Battle of Britain somehow got the impression that when the Warsaw uprising happened the Americans and the Brits would assist. Like you say, that was close to impossible both physically and tactically

So the Poles started their rebellion and the calvary didn’t come and, as you pointed out Stalin sat just outside of town and let the Germans do his dirty work.

I think the main point is that overall the Poles gave a lot more than they got.

[bernard11]

It is completely disgusting the way people have tried to foist blame for the Holocaust and WWII atrocities against Jews from the Germans onto the Poles.

Good thing nobody is doing that. What people are pointing out, accurately, is that Poland was, well before WWII, a very antisemitic country (check out Roman Dmowski and the Endeks) and that this continued after the war, leading to murders of Jews returning to the country.

You might also have a look at the March, 1968 crisis in Poland.