Gibson v. Maloney
Decision Date | 28 January 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 37914,37914 |
Parties | B. Roy GIBSON, Jr., and St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation under the Laws of Florida, Petitioners, v. Joseph A. MALONEY, d/b/a the Apalachicola Times, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ford L. Thompson, of Thompson & Wadsworth, Tallahassee, and Charles S. Isler, Jr., of Isler, Welch, Bryant, Smith & Higby, Panama City, for petitioners.
J. Ben Watkins, of Truett & Watkins, Miami, for respondent.
This cause is before the Court for review on conflict certiorari of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported in Gibson v. Maloney, Fla.App., 214 So.2d 89 It is conflict of Decisions, not conflict of Opinions or reasons that supplies jurisdiction for review by certiorari. Fla.Const., Art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. When comparing decisions it may be necessary to consult the record to some extent. Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So.2d 221 (Fla.1965).
The record clearly shows that appellees acquired a small weekly newspaper in Apalachicola, Florida, and immediately started a news and editorial campaign against the Alfred I. duPont interests and its affiliates, St. Joe Paper Company and St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company. Samples of the publications in the record demonstrate an attempt to harass and abuse the duPont interests, apparently for the purpose of convincing the public that these interests were some sort of evil influence in the community of Apalachicola and that it would therefore not be a good place to live and do business.
At a meeting of the Rotary Club in Port St. Joe, located a short distance from Apalachicola, one Gibson, President of St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company, addressed the Rotary Club commenting generally on development of the area, and in his remarks said:
'Now, I shall take Apalachicola: Our exchange there in the year 1964 lost 74 telephones--only exchange that we have that showed any loss in telephones--and, in my opinion, this loss can be attributed largely to the local newspaper in Apalachicola and its publisher, who seems to take pleasure in berating and abusing any business interest in his community, including the larger taxpayers in this County; and, in my opinion, frequently, in referring to the Alfred I. duPont Estate and its various interests, not only vents his displeasure, venom, and, in some instances, outright falsehoods--this in spite of the fact that the interests of the Alfred I. duPont Estate are one of the largest taxpayers in the County.
Subsequently, Maloney, as a publisher and editor of the Apalachicola Times, the only newspaper published in the County, filed suit against Gibson and St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company for slander and libel, and at conclusion of a trial Maloney was awarded damages in the amount of $15,000.00 against defendants, which award was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, First District, the decision appearing as Gibson v. Apalachicola Times, 214 So.2d 89. During the course of the trial defendants requested certain charges anchored to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, defining the limitations and requirements for recovery against public figures. The charges were refused by the trial court.
There can be little doubt that Maloney entered the area and established the anti-duPont editorial policy of his Apalachicola Times, for the purpose of arousing public indignation against these interests, and by virtue of that made himself a public figure engaged in a public enterprise and for the purpose, among other things, of influencing public opinion. He became a part of the passing scene and therefore subject to fair comment. The case is clearly controlled, and a reversal called for, by the decision of this court in Abrams v. Odham, 89 So.2d 334 (Fla.1956). In that case Abrams had entered the publishing business much as Maloney did, for the purpose, among other things, of influencing opinion to his will by the publishing of a so-called political poll with limited circulation. After his poll had down-graded candidate Odham, Odham struck back by calling Abrams a 'phoney pollster', as a result of which Abrams sued Odham and a newspaper publishing his remarks. In disposing of that case this Court said:
Actually, we need go no further to reverse the case sub judice than the Abrams case. However, this Court in Jacova v. Southern Radio and Television Company, Fla., 83 So.2d 34, in denying a claim by Jacova who had made himself an actor in a newsworthy event, said:
In New York Times Company v. Sullivan, Supra, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
'The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, 'was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1308, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498. 'The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.' Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 536, 75 L.Ed. 1117. '(I)t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.' Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, 62 S.Ct. 190, 197, 86 L.Ed. 192 and this opportunity is to be afforded for 'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion.' N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405.
'The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1943).
What the public knows generally the courts are presumed to know, and we therefore are aware that the underlying policy of Rotary Clubs is to support the normal growth of their respective communities. It was therefore fitting and proper that at such a public meeting the failure of a segment of the community to grow and the apparent reason for it not growing should be freely discussed. Therefore, under the command of the Abrams, Jocova and Sullivan case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Frontier Broadcasting Co.
...advocating slate for the Democratic Party District Columbia offices and who was Chairman of the Campaign Committee); Gibson v. Maloney, Fla.App. 231 So.2d 823 (1970), cert. den. 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970) (Newspaper publisher who had established editorial policy agai......
-
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, 79-1463
...to rewrite the Court's entire opinion. 2 The defendant Miami Herald also relies on various other Florida decisions to wit: Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Odham, 89 So.2d 334 (Fla.1956); Jacova v. Southern Radio & Television Co., 83 So.2d 34 (Fla.1955); Coogler v. Rhod......
-
Nodar v. Galbreath
...to other persons his fair comment and criticism on any public, governmental, political, social, or cultural matters. Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970). White v. Fletcher, 90 So.2d 129 (Fla.1956); Abram v. Odham, 89 So.2d 334 (Fla.1956); McClellan v. L'Engle, 74 Fla. 581, 77 So. 27......
-
State ex rel. Gore Newspapers Co. v. Tyson
...the respect due to private life would condemn.' p. 216, 4 Harvard Law Review.' Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corporation, supra; cf. Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. den. 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d Certainly this is not to suggest that every divorce proceeding is deemed a......