defamation action against newspaper for asserting that plaintiff, a school board member, breached fiduciary duty by overpaying public funds to buy property from a political and personal ally
How later courts described this case
- defamation action against newspaper for asserting that plaintiff, a school board member, breached fiduciary duty by overpaying public funds to buy property from a political and personal ally
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Woodside, J.:
A free democratic society cannot endure unless it rests firmly upon the right of the governed to criticize their officials. This right is no less valid because the criticism is sometimes caustic and undeserved. All officials long in public service have suffered from abusive language by critical constituents, but the feelings of officials is an insignificant consideration beside the need of a clear right to criticize them without undue *58 restrictions. When a person seeks and holds public office, he must be willing to endure criticism of his official acts beyond that which a private citizen is called upon to bear for his acts.
Of course, the right of the press to attack public officials is not without limits. Circulating false and grossly unfair reports concerning official conduct misleads the public and undermines their confidence in the press as well as in their officials. The courts must draw a line which enables the press to critically examine the acts of public officials without fear of reprisal, but which does not allow the public to be misled and the officials unduly abused by false and scurrilous reports.
I dissent in this case because I think the line drawn by the majority requires the defendants to account too strictly for their criticism of a real estate transaction in which the appellee was involved as a public official. Although the attack on the school director was severe and the stated details inaccurate, 1 the basic facts reported were substantially true. I think we should hold as a matter of law that the printed article was not defamatory.
I would enter judgment for the defendants n.o.v.
The price paid for the premises was inaccurately stated in the article, and it was the councilman’s wife and not he who had an interest in the premises.