Court Opinion

ID: 9423676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:08:43.330535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:45.413953
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Foetas,
dissenting.
I do not believe that petitioner satisfied the minimal standards of care specified by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964). The affidavit that petitioner broadcast contained a seriously libelous statement directed against respondent. Respondent was a public official. He was not petitioner’s adversary in the political contest. Petitioner’s casual, careless, callous use of the libel cannot be rationalized as resulting from the heat of a campaign. Under New York Times, this libel was broadcast by petitioner with “actual malice” — with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The principle of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 (1967), in my opinion, should lead us to affirmance here.
The First Amendment is not so fragile that it requires us to immunize this kind of reckless, destructive invasion of the life, even of public officials, heedless of their interests and sensitivities. The First Amendment is not a shelter for the character assassinator, whether his action is heedless and reckless or deliberate. The First Amendment does not require that we license shotgun attacks on public officials in virtually unlimited open season. The occupation of public officeholder does not forfeit one’s membership in the human race. The public official should be subject to severe scrutiny and to free and open criticism. But if he is needlessly, heedlessly, falsely accused of crime, he should have a remedy in law. New York Times does not preclude this minimal standard of civilized living.
Petitioner had a duty here to check the reliability of the libelous statement about respondent. If he had made a good-faith check, I would agree that he should be pro*735tected even if the statement were false, because the interest of public officials in their reputation must endure this degree of assault. But since he made no check, I agree with the Supreme Court of Louisiana that New York Times does not prohibit recovery.
I would affirm.