Court Opinion

ID: 9707400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:10:34.603625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:32.111679
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(concurring). As to the level of proof required, the writer completely concurs with the majority’s holding that the plaintiff — to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to the reporting of news as to public events or concerns — must prove that the alleged defamatory statement was made with “actual” malice — that is, made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
However, as to damages recoverable if such higher threshold of proof is crossed, the writer would hold that damages in this situation should be limited only to “actual” damages — that is, damages that reflect any loss or injuries in fact sustained by the public figure — plaintiff. Neither presumed nor punitive damages should be permitted or awardable. The same cases, cited by the majority, that require the higher level of proof in this situation, suggest at least the lower limit on damages that are to be awarded. The constitutional protection to freedom of speech and the sound public policy of seeking to promote and protect full debate and free discussion of public issues and policies would be better served by both the higher threshold as to proof and a lowered ceiling as to damages. (See: Dissenting opinion in Dalton v. Meister (1971), 52 Wis. 2d 173, 184, 188 N. W. 2d 494.)
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Leo B. Hanley joins in this concurring opinion.