Court Opinion

ID: 9460131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:42:27.482095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:29.596770
License: Public Domain

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the granting of summary judgment by the district court.
The court has today characterized the issue before the district court as whether Mr. Taggart was “drawn out” and made an involuntary performer or whether he was a mere participant in a newsworthy event and concluded that such factual determinations are for the jury. If this case involved only the application of the New York statute to the factual situation presented here, I would agree that summary judgment was improperly granted.
However, the central issue before the district court was whether the rule of Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), applied to the facts of this ease. The question of whether or not Mr. Taggart was a participant in a newsworthy event, even if properly characterized as one of fact, involves a constitutional decision as to the proper application of a First Amendment standard. It must, therefore, be considered one of “constitutional fact” which the Supreme Court has said to be subject to de novo review.1 Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 53-54, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (opinion of Brennan, J.). In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 285, 84 S.Ct. 710, 728, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the Court said:
“This Court’s duty is not limited to the elaboration of constitutional principles; we must also in proper eases review the evidence to make certain that those principles have been constitutionally applied. This is such a ease, particularly since the question is one of alleged trespass across ‘the line between speech unconditionally guar*440anteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated.’ [Citing case.] In cases where that line must be drawn, the' rule is that we ‘examine for ourselves the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect.’ ”
It follows that at trial such issues are properly decided by the judge on a motion for summary judgment, where there are no other genuine issues of material fact.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated that in cases where a First Amendment privilege is claimed under the doctrine of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, “as is the case with questions of privilege generally, it is for the trial judge in the first instance to determine whether the proofs show respondent to be a ‘public official’.” Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 88, 86 S.Ct. 669, 677, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966). Lower courts have generally assumed with little or no discussion that the question of whether a particular event constituted a matter of “public interest” is also for the trial judge to determine. See, e. g., Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 426 F.2d 858, 861-62 (5th Cir. 1970); Wasserman v. Time, Inc., 138 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 424 F.2d 920, 922, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 940, 90 S.Ct. 1844, 26 L.Ed.2d 273 (1970) ; Time, Inc. v. McLaney, 406 F.2d 565, 566 (5th Cir. 1969); United Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 404 F.2d 706, 711-712 (9th Cir. 1968); Cerrito v. Time, Inc., 302 F.Supp. 1071, 1073 (N.D.Cal.1969); Sellers v. Time, Inc., 299 F.Supp. 582, 586 (E.D.Pa.1969); aff’d on grounds of state law, 423 F.2d 887 (3d Cir. 1970).. As I understand the claim that Mr. Taggart was “drawn out,” the issue is whether the brief questioning2 of Mr. Taggart in the midst of the Woodstock festival was an event of public interest. A decision on a motion for summary judgment was, therefore, appropriate.
“Male Voice: ‘You’re getting a little behind on this job aren’t yuh?’
Turning to the substantive question as to whether that decision was correct, it seems clear that this case falls within the rule of Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra. Since no showing of actual malice was made in the trial court, summary judgment was properly granted.
There is no question that the Woodstock festival itself was an event of public interest nor that Mr. Taggart, by his presence there, was a participant in it. Furthermore, counsel for appellant has conceded in oral argument that if Mr. Taggart had only been filmed and not interviewed, this action would be barred. I fail to see why the mere fact of the brief questions asked should alter that result.
There may arise cases where a reporter or film maker conducts an interview in such a way as to lose the constitutional privilege of Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra. For example, where an incident is staged, as in the television series “Candid Camera,” it would not seem to be an event of public interest. But here Mr. Taggart was simply filmed going about his ordinary occupation and asked a few questions that directly related to his *441participation in, and opinions on, a clearly newsworthy event. This is a common and important technique of investigative reporting and should enjoy the same constitutional protection as would a written or filmed account of that event. I would affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment.-

. Indeed, in the very cases which first enunciated the First Amendment privilege claimed here, the Supreme Court determined for itself the question of whether the facts alleged and proved at trial met the standard as to what kind of public official or public issue would require a showing of actual malice to allow recovery in a libel action. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270-271, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967).

. The text of the dialogue from the film is as follows:
“Taggart: ‘Okay. Somebody left their cane in here. Some poor fellow will come looking for his cane.’
“Taggart: ‘Oh, they’ve been behind right along, besides, it’s not the idea of being behind it’s you just can’t keep up that’s what ' it is.’
“Male Voice: ‘Usin’ a-quite a bit o’ that stuff, huh? (Referring to a spray.)
“Taggart: ‘Yeah. That helps give yuh a little pleasanter uh, odor, you know. Yeah, with the disinfectant in thei'e and you put your deodorant bars in, makes it a little more pleasanter to go in there an’ use it.
“Taggart: ‘That is it, gentlemen.’
“Male Voice: ‘Well, you’re doing a good job here.
“Taggart: ‘Thank you very much (laughs). Glad to do it for these kids. My son’s here too. An’ I got one over in Viet Nam too. He’s up in the DMZ right now. Flyin’ helicopters. Okay, see yuh later.’ ”