Court Opinion

ID: 9793122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:42:52.931412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:13.560461
License: Public Domain

Becker, J.,
concurring:
I concur with the decision of the majority to affirm the order granting summary judgment because I do not believe the Union had actual knowledge that the statements made in the Mississippi action were false. The pleadings and affidavits do not establish a “genuine issue of material fact,” nor do they demonstrate that additional discovery is likely to produce such evidence.
I disagree with the majority’s holding that the fair reporting privilege should be absolute and unconditional. I believe the privilege should be conditional as to the general public and absolute when applied to the press. If an individual has actual knowledge that information contained in a legal pleading is false and then reports that information with the intent to harm another, then such a person should be subject to an action in defamation.
Under the majority’s analysis, it is now permissible for individuals to file lawsuits containing false statements, arrange for the republication of those statements under the fair reporting privilege, and avoid the consequences of a defamation action.
I agree with Justice Shearing that the privilege should be absolute for representatives of the press. If a conditional privilege applied to members of the news media, they would be subject to *225the cost and expense of defending a lawsuit until it was clear that the plaintiff could not prove that the press had actual knowledge that the information contained in the judicial proceeding was false. This is too great a burden to place upon the members of the fourth estate. The benefit gained by having the press report upon judicial proceedings outweighs the harm that could result from one reporter abusing the privilege for profit.