concluding Gertz protections applied to both media and nonmedia defendants even in cases involving private plaintiffs
How later courts described this case
- concluding Gertz protections applied to both media and nonmedia defendants even in cases involving private plaintiffs
- defamation per se entitles a plaintiff to presumed general damages for injury to character, reputation, feelings, mental suffering or anguish, and other wrongs not susceptible to monetary valuation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PRESLAR, Chief Justice.
I respectfully dissent. I would not apply the Gertz holding to this case which does not involve the media. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The majority holding is in conflict with Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company v. Wherry, 548 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 962 , 98 S.Ct. 497 , 54 L.Ed.2d 447 (1977). Contrary to the majority, I would assume Gertz and Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., 541 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.1976), apply only to media cases. In a democracy, where the people rule, they must be informed and to that end those with knowledge of public officials should not be inhibited or in fear of speaking out. The courts give such authors the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. When an individual, not a public official, is injured by the words of another, the reason for the First and Fourteenth Amendments protection does not exist. Redress of private wrongs by one individual against another is not founded on “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include the vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Quotation from New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 at 270 , 84 S.Ct. 710 at 721 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964).
Respectfully submitted.