Court Opinion

ID: 9686206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:33:43.797171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:16.018789
License: Public Domain

*913ON REHEARING
McCALEB, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the premise on which the majority opinion is founded.
Initially, I fail to see any difference factually for the asserted distinction between this case and Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), where the Supreme Court extended the constitutional privilege of the First Amendment to publications regarding a private individual’s involvement in an event or issue of wide public interest. In that case, as in this one, there was no doubt that the libel was published without actual malice — that is, without knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Yet, the majority refuses to apply the New York Times-Sullivan rule on the basis that Rosenbloom was an obscenity case, whereas here the publication is declared to be of an event of no public interest, i. e., simply the forfeiture of a small appearance bond in a misdemeanor case.
This view overlooks the fact that all court proceedings involving enforcement of our criminal laws to be matters of public concern and interest. More importantly, the conclusion reached gives no consideration to the fact that the nature of the case in which the bond was forfeited — a peeping tom case — was a matter of public concern and interest, involving prosecution under a law designed to curb violations of the right of privacy by trespass. Indeed, it was for this reason that plaintiff allegedly suffered damages; it was not because it was stated erroneously that his small appearance bond was forfeited in a misdemeanor case; it was because of the false statement that he failed to appear for trial on a charge of being a peeping tom.
Moreover, when plaintiff herein became the bondsman to secure the presence for trial of a person charged with a criminal offense, he was voluntarily performing á public act. I can think of hardly any function more important in the administration of criminal justice, or of more public concern, than that involved in compelling the presence of an accused at his trial. And, in my opinion, it is of no less importance and of general concern because the criminal charge involved in only a misdemeanor. Manifestly, under the facts of this case, the inadvertently inaccurate publication occurred directly as a result of this voluntary involvement of plaintiff in a matter impressed with great public interest. For this reason the Rosenbloom facts are not distinguishable.
I respectfully dissent.