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 ...
How do we know what's true and what's untrue unless an impartial investigation is done and medical records are opened? We hear Terri's family's side of it --- and we hear her husband side of it and he wants her dead. Neither has been tried in a court of law like OJ Simpson who was not proven guilty. And people still speculate on that after the case has been tried.
Which, based on the pro bono advice he was offering the other night, is questionable as well.
Where do you think all those court orders and appeals came from? I'll give you three guesses.
As much as that event might bring much relief to the majority here, I would not wish to give your harpies, to include oneida and the catsmeow, further cause to raise you higher on their shoulder pads.
You act like you want to be taken seriously,
The most common denominator with you and your ugly little clique is your unabashed escape to projection.
...but then you actually believe that the RC annulment process has any bearing whatsoever with the statutory machinations of civil dissolutions?
You are exceptionally careless as best for an attorney, but you may want to rephrase your gem (just for the common folk, you know):
"An RC church annulment is meaningless to civil separation or divorce, nor do civil statutes on annulment follow the same rules as curch annulment.
Now, you have either been careless, deliberately ignorant of the case law, or as I suspect a bit of both compounded by your continued demonstration of pulling everything you need out of your depressing need to be right...much like those thousands of plaintiffs who prevailed in defamation cases.
Say, you're not mochajoke are you?
Even if her parents were to make a guarantee in writing that MS would not have to pay alimony/maintenance and Terri's future medical bills, the judge in the divorce case would not allow it. The judge would say, "it's against public policy," and order maintenance and payment of all future medical not covered by Medicare.
A legal annulment would not void any future financial responsibility on the part of MS, even if Terri or MS could get an annulment. An annulment generally voids the marriage based on circumstances at the time of the marriage.
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.