Posted on 10/25/2003 9:22:45 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
Next, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986), the court found that at least where a media defendant is concerned, an actionable statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false by the plaintiff before there can be liability under state defamation law. The Hepps court limited its holding to cases involving media defendants and left open the question of the standard for non-media private defendants raising statements of public concern about public figures. n9 This is precisely the issue presented here. That is, this case raises the question of the applicable [*480] standard for an alleged defamed public official by a private defendant on matters of great public concern.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 779 n.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the absence of any direct precedent from either the United States Supreme Court or Supreme Court of Florida on this issue, I believe that at the very minimum, the standard set forth in the New York Times [**21] line of cases, requiring actual malice, must govern. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 n.6 ("prior to Hepps, . . . where public official or public figure plaintiffs were involved, the New York Times rule already required a showing of falsity before liability could result." (citations omitted)).
Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity, I believe that footnote 6 of the majority's opinion is misplaced. The ultimate issue here is not whether Horan's statements were false, but rather whether Horan knew or "recklessly disregarded" that his statements were false. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 806. Thus, it is not necessary, or even desirable, for Barnes to subpoena and depose the attorneys and sitting judges in Monroe County. n10 Moreover, the results of the "opinion poll," embraced by the majority, could not reliably discern the truth or falsity of Horan's assertions regarding Monroe County's judges' and lawyers' opinions of Barnes as a lawyer and/or candidate. See, e.g., Ollman v. Evans, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a community's opinion of a plaintiff's stature [**22] in the community is incapable of being adjudicated with any expectation of accuracy). (Bork, J., concurring). Accordingly, I believe that such discovery is impermissible and should not be allowed to take place.
Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472, 479-480 (Fla. App. , 2002)
==================
Foremost, we think Hepps [ Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986)] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. (footnote omitted) Thus, unlike the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar," the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin," would not be actionable. Hepps ensures that a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (footnote omitted).
Next, the Bresler-Letter Carriers-Falwell [**13] line of cases provide protection of statements that cannot "reasonably (be) interpreted as stating actual facts" about an individual. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 50. This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. See id., at 53-55.
The New York Times-Butts and Gertz culpability requirements further ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270. Thus, HN6where a statement of "opinion" on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Similarly, where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz.
Milkovich, 110 S. Ct. at 2707. Thus, in the instant case [**14] assuming medical costs and insurance are a subject of public concern, which we concede they are, if the statements are capable of being proved false, they are not protected.
Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. App. , 1990)
(Excerpt) Read more at 3dca.flcourts.org ...
Thankfully.
Why is everything being posted on the Internet reminding me of musicals nowadays?
Cole Porter - Anything Goes
Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today
Any shock they should try to stem
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
Refrain 1
In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.
If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like,
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose.
When ev'ry night the set that's smart is in-
Truding in nudist parties in
Studios.
Anything goes.
Refrain 2
When Missus Ned McLean (God bless her)
Can get Russian reds to "yes" her,
Then I suppose
Anything goes.
When Rockefeller still can hoard en-
Ough money to let Max Gordon
Produce his shows,
Anything goes.
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
And that gent today
You gave a cent today
Once had several chateaux.
When folks who still can ride in jitneys
Find out Vanderbilts and Whitneys
Lack baby clo'es,
Anything goes.
Refrain 3
If Sam Goldwyn can with great conviction
Instruct Anna Sten in diction,
Then Anna shows
Anything goes.
When you hear that Lady Mendl standing up
Now turns a handspring landing up-
On her toes,
Anything goes.
Just think of those shocks you've got
And those knocks you've got
And those blues you've got
From that news you've got
And those pains you've got
(If any brains you've got)
From those little radios.
So Missus R., with all her trimmin's,
Can broadcast a bed from Simmons
'Cause Franklin knows
Anything goes.
Because it's what makes posting at a forum like this entertaining. If we were limited to the facts only and couldn't have suspicions on this person and that, it would get awfully boring very quickly.
And, btw, who are you to tell me what's possibly true and what ain't.
I believe nothing about everything and everything about nothing.
Speaking of psycho lawyerdom, Chancellor, why won't you answer the questions I asked you (and also in FRmail before you fled) on this thread:
DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed] ^
This is a fair question:
Please look at post #521 on this thread, and post #613, and answer the question.
Are you - or were you - known on FR as one_particular_harbour?
First CP claims that thousands of plaintiffs prevail in defamation cases, and now, (drum roll, please) he claims an RC annulment is meaningless as to civil divorce?
Does this nitwit really practice law somewhere?
I actully wrote a letter to the editor to one of our local papers on this subject awhile back and it addressed the thin-skinnes of liberals, progressives and moderates whenever people say anything negative about them, just because it makes them feel uncomfortable, they always go to some judge that they buy off and scream defamation and that judge awards them excessive amount of money in damages.
This clearly makes a case for tort reform and why we need to vote those who are influenced by these ambulance chasers in 2004. Including a certain Senator from Alabama who voted with the ambulance chasers against ending a filibuster on the tort reform vote in the Senate.
Our first amendment like it or not gives people the right to address issues of public importance affecting them. No civil liability judgements or threats thereof or placing liens on homes is going to stop conservatives or christians from addressing issues of public importance or engaging in political activity related to these issues. No conservative or christian is going to allow himself or herself to be pushed into accepting any liability just because his or her speech or political activity causes certain protected individuals disconfort.
Yes some people have been made to feel uncomfortable by people's expressing opinions or engaging in political activity but uncomfortable does not qualify as actionable just because some liberal, progressive or moderate egghead or ambulance chaser or idiot in black robes says so.
There are plenty of places where people have the opportunity to address issues of public importance and engage in political acitivity. No one intenret message board or talkradio station or other soapbox owns exculsivity to this platform.
It all boils down to if you don't like what is being said or being done where you are, go pack your bags and move somplace else. The one thing America doesn't need or want right now is some Political Correct goof ball playing speech and thought police.
Regards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.