Court Opinion

ID: 9529413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:50:35.530194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:46.217889
License: Public Domain

Special Concurring Opinion STOUDER, P. J. I concur in the result reáched in the foregoing opinion but not entirely with the reasoning employed therein. I especially disagree with the heavy reliance upon New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 11 L Ed2d 686, 84 S Ct 710, as support for the implied proposition that the freedom of the press to comment on public affairs and about public personages can only be achieved, protected or promoted without regard to responsibility for such comments. To me there can be no freedom without responsibility. The New York Times case does not stand for this proposition. That opinion was written in the light of the exigencies of the social ills of our times and much of the opinion as expressed must be considered dicta. The Court in the Times case concluded that there was nothing in the advertisement nor in the evidence offered at the trial from which it could be reasonably inferred that the advertisement referred to the Plaintiff. Similarly, in the instant case, the opinion can be predicated upon the factual circumstance that it was Plaintiff’s own conduct which resulted in the false information in the editorial. In basing the majority opinion on the malice or lack thereof, of Defendant, it goes much further than is necessary.