FILLMORE, Utah — A local judge recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit against the Millard County Chronicle Progress, concluding that the plaintiff, Wayne Aston, failed to adequately substantiate his allegations. Aston had claimed that the newspaper’s coverage of his business proposal in Fillmore was inaccurate and slanderous. However, during a hearing on September 4, the defense successfully argued that a newly enacted Utah law aimed at protecting freedom of expression justified the suit’s dismissal before trial.
The legislation, passed in 2023, serves to eliminate unsubstantiated defamation claims early in the legal process, sparing the defendants costly litigation fees. Defense attorney Jeffrey Hunt stressed that this statute precisely applied to the present case, describing it as plagued by numerous legal shortcomings. The judge echoed these sentiments and ruled against Aston with prejudice, which prevents him from filing the lawsuit anew.
Aston, appearing in Fillmore in 2022, voiced plans to construct a facility for manufacturing modular homes which later evolved into incorporating a recycling and repurposing plant. This business venture, according to Hunt, would necessitate a considerable capital allocation from the city for infrastructure, but promised employment opportunities for hundreds.
The narrative took a turn when Matt Ward, a reporter for the Chronicle Progress, probed Aston’s past business endeavours. Aston, who had discussed previous projects during a city council presentation, was then the subject of further examination by Ward. This investigation revealed a history of contentious business disputes and legal actions tied to Aston over more than a decade. This evidence was allegedly relevant to his reliability and capability to fulfill the proposed plans.
Ward’s articles, published prior to the city council’s decision to reject Aston’s proposal in August 2023 over unresolved environmental and other concerns, were the basis of the defamation claim. The reporting included Aston’s response to the concerns raised and highlighted the extensive impact this project could have had on Fillmore.
Hunt argued that this lawsuit typified a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), commonly engaged to suppress free speech through intimidating legal actions. The state’s anti-SLAPP provision allows defendants, like the Millard County Chronicle Progress, to request early case dismissal on grounds of exercising First Amendment rights, and if successful, to seek legal fees repayment from the plaintiff.
Contrarily, Aston’s attorney, Ryan Frazier, contended that the published reports were not only misleading but were designed to portray the project negatively. Frazier emphasized that the news pieces failed to reflect the environmental commitment and community benefits Aston intended, casting them instead in a decidedly critical light without sufficient factual backing.
Frazier also maintained that accounts of Aston’s prior ventures were irrelevant to his current proposal and argued that the court should recognize that the press does not have carte blanche under freedom of speech to defame individuals.
In refuting the lawsuit, the judge noted that the complaints lodged had repeated errors, failing to accurately reflect the content and implications of the news articles. The court remarked that Aston’s legal representation should recognize the requirement that defamatory statements must be proven false at the point of publication.
The dismissal highlights ongoing tensions between public interest reporting and the thresholds for libel, aligning the court with media advocates who view such legal protections as vital for journalistic integrity and democratic accountability. The case serves as a nuanced example of the balance courts maintain between shielding reputation and preserving robust public discourse.