Court Opinion

ID: 9449389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:11:14.084805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:49.321448
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The foregoing opinion’s importance lies in its alarming invasion of the right of the press to publish its interpretation of the factual situation presented in an official report issued by a commission created by the Congress of the United States, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1975.
From the Commission’s report entitled “Justice”, it is clear that the Commission had a basis for the statements which it made in its report.1 It referred, at page 105, to “a comprehensive review of available evidence”, while, at page 5, it disclaimed making any conclusive determination as to whether the complainants or the police officers were correct in their statements, this being “a function of a court”. But it expressly stated that “allegations of misconduct are supported in several cases by criminal convictions or findings by impartial agencies; in others, by sworn testimony, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or by staff 2 field investigations”. That case not having come to trial in court at that time, the Commission, for convenience, expressly quoted the charges of the Monroe complaint as set forth by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his dissent, 365 U.S. 167, at 203-204, 81 S.Ct. 473, at 492-493.
Justice dealt with numerous other cases where police brutality charges had been made, discussed violence by others-than police, considered state and local remedies and the status and rights of the American Indian.
At 112, Justice made recommendations to Congress as to the advisability of remedial legislation. The report was-duly transmitted to Congress.
The report known as Justice was privileged and non-actionable in a libel suit. A published article which fairly comments upon a governmental report is likewise privileged and nonactionable,. under Illinois law. The publication in the case at bar is a fair comment upon the issuance of a governmental report and its contents. Plaintiff cannot force publishers, under threat of libel, to eon*657ceal the fact that the Commission pointed to his alleged conduct as a basis for its conclusions and recommendations to Congress.
I would affirm.

. Said act required the filing of a report. See § 1975c (b).

. Italics supplied for emphasis. § 1975d (a) provided that there should be a full-time staff director for the Commission.