Court Opinion

ID: 9593784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:24:54.416911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:14.358328
License: Public Domain

OPALA, Justice,
concurring in judgment.
I concur in today’s opinion only insofar as it holds that the respondent may not be disciplined for constitutionally protected utterances that fall under the rubric of political speech. See in this connection, In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 646-647, 105 S.Ct.. 2874, 2882, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 [1985] and Comment, The First Amendment and Attorney Discipline for Criticism of the Judiciary: Let the Lawyer Beware, 15 N.Ky.L. Rev. 129 [1988]. Even if, after an initial rejection of its evidence — a ruling I deem correct — the Bar had followed up with a formal and particularized offer to prove that the respondent’s remarks were false in fact, no discipline would be imposable here. Respondent’s constitutional freedom of speech does not depend on the truth of its content.