Opinion ID: 1704304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fair Comment Doctrine

Text: This doctrine as observed in this State is clearly and succinctly stated in the case of Edmonds v. Delta Democrat Pub. Co., 230 Miss. 583, 93 So.2d 171 (1957). The appellant there was an attorney who at the time of the publication upon which the suit was based was executive secretary of United Drys Association of Mississippi which was engaged in an effort to defeat the legalization of liquor in a referendum. He had always enjoyed a good reputation, private and professionally. On June 15, 1952, the defendant, a newspaper, published and distributed therein an editorial stating that he had misrepresented the statute that would become law in event the people voted yes in said election. The plaintiff alleged that the editorial contained false and libelous words and was meant to imply and did imply that plaintiff was given to lying, and his word was not to be trusted; that defendant falsely and maliciously in disregard of the truth did publish this editorial containing said words which were libelous per se. There, this Court said: The declaration showed that plaintiff occupied a prominent position which was quasi-public in nature and the editorial in question was a comment and criticism of the assertions of plaintiff in regard to a matter of public interest; and the editorial was not, and was not alleged to be, ambiguous. It was not alleged that there was in the editorial any falsity in the statements of fact on which the writer thereof based his critcisms of plaintiff, only that the editorial contained false and libelous words of and concerning plaintiff, which could only be construed to mean that the strictures or critcisms themselves were false and libelous. In this state of the pleading it shows on its face the occasion was conditionally privileged, and it is a question of law whether that privilege was abused.       When a person comes prominently forward in any way and becomes a public or quasi-public figure, he invites free expression of public opinion, including criticism. When such criticism is in the form of an opinion, relates to public assertions or acts rather than to the individual in his private affairs, is fair in the sense that the reader can understand the factual basis for the opinions containing the criticism, and the publication relates to a matter of public interest, then the occasion is conditionally privileged; and no action will lie for such publication no matter how severe the criticism or unfavorable the comments, if the privilege is not abused.    The immunity of the doctrine of fair comment applies not only to newspapers but to the public generally. Newell, Slander and Libel, 4th ed., p. 516. The interests of society require that immunity should be granted to the discussion of public affairs and that all acts and matters of a public nature may be freely discussed and published with fitting comments and strictures.    230 Miss. at 590-591, 93 So.2d at 173. The Court further said: Whether the privilege has been abused is usually a question of whether the criticism was made with an honest purpose or was made with malice in the sense of spite or ill will, or culpable recklessness or negligence. When the occasion is privileged, malice will not be presumed. The presumption is that it was in good faith. Yancey v. Gillespie, 242 N.C. 227, 87 S.E.2d 210, supra. Nothing in the editorial indicates spite, ill will, culpable recklessness or negligence. 230 Miss. at 591-592, 93 So.2d at 174. This decision holds as seen that under the doctrine of fair comment a man occupying a prominent position public or quasi-public in nature is subject to serve criticism and malice is not presumed, but must be proven. The matters here published and on which recovery was sought appear to be opinions. In this case, the statements to us appear to be fair comment in a matter concerning a large sector of the county's population, in the handling of a matter connected with government, and in an effort by those involved to better conditions in the school as they deemed it. Our constitution provides our State may have a common school system, and the laws provide for the selection of the trustees and county superintendents, and the appointment by the superintendent and board of trustees of the principal to be in charge of a school where the young of the county are given an opportunity to secure an education at the taxpayers' expense. The articles in the pamphlet showing facts support the opinions. The burden is on plaintiff to show malice. The judge of the trial court held the intent (to have another principal at the school) showed malice. To permit an intent to remove a person from an office to be proof of malice would never do. Otherwise, how would a petition for recall be secured in those states authorizing recall? The plaintiff failed in the proof to establish malice that would permit recovery.