Court Opinion

ID: 9678969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:37:29.021861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.156332
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
I vote to affirm. As pointed out by Division 3, 5 Mich App 74, all authoritative precedent, opposed only by a decision made in 1919 by a nisi prius court, Uhlman v. Sherman, 22 Ohio. NP (NS) 225 (31 Ohio Dec 54), rules that the business of publishing a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise and that the publisher thereof is under no legal obligation to sell advertising to all who would buy it.
Plaintiff’s derivative contention, that the defendant publisher has actionably discriminated against him,* is answered properly by a portion of Judge Holbeook’s ' opinion which, in my view, should be expressly indorsed (5 Mich App 74, 84):
“Arguendo, even under Uhlman, supra, plaintiff must fail. Defendant’s refusal to publish plaintiff’s advertising was because the advertising did not meet the published standards of defendant for motion picture advertising, and during the time plaintiff’s *488advertisements were printed, defendant’s staff bad to expend a disproportionate amount of time to make tbem acceptable. Tbe failure of plaintiff to show that defendant deviated from tbis policy is fatal because tbe essential element of discrimination is lacking.”
Defendant should bave costs.
Dethmers, C. J. and Kelly, T. M. KavaNagh, O’Haea, and BreNNAN, JJ., concurred with Black, J.

 Plaintiff presents the contention by this stated question:
“When a newspaper, which is the only daily paper in a community of approximately 125,000 persons, has theater advertising space to sell, has it a right to discriminate against one local theater owner by refusing to aceept his advertising when in his application for advertising he complies with the law and the reasonable rules of the newspaper in reference to the character of its advertising, and also' tenders the regular and ordinary fee charged therefor by the newspaper?”