Court Opinion

ID: 9571875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:35:57.26726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:07.679091
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
dissenting.
When viewed from its four corners, the publication complained of constitutes an expression of opinion regarding activities and comments of a public figure that, in my opinion, is entitled to protection under the Article I, Sec. 14 of the Constitu*244tion of North Carolina and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I believe this case to be a fair example of where the public’s interest in uninhibited, robust, and open comment is paramount to an individual’s interest in protecting his reputation or privacy. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed. 2d 686 (1964); compare Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1974); and Brown v. Boney, 41 N.C. App. 636, 255 S.E. 2d 784, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E. 2d 910 (1979).
For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.