York Times test in Missouri

1991New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 .

1991New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80 , 84 S.Ct. at 725-26 .

1985A number of these scholars recognize that the expansion of the New York Times standard to public figures and the rejection of the public interest test developed in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) is not consistent with the First Amendment theory of New York Times v. Sullivan, supra. E.G., Schauer, "Public Figures,” 25 William & Mary L.Rev. 905, 908, 919 (1984).

1985A number of these scholars recognize that the expansion of the New York Times standard to public figures and the rejection of the public interest test developed in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) is not consistent with the First Amendment theory of New York Times v. Sullivan, supra. E.G., Schauer, "Public Figures,” 25 William & Mary L.Rev. 905, 908, 919 (1984).

1982The Gertz rationale also presumably repudiates the newsworthiness test for the application of the New York Times privilege to a case of invasion of privacy in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 , 87 S.Ct. 534 , 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967).

1982The Gertz rationale also presumably repudiates the newsworthiness test for the application of the New York Times privilege to a case of invasion of privacy in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 , 87 S.Ct. 534 , 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967).

1991First Amendment interests far outweigh a purpose of "maintaining respect for the courts." See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 22-26 , 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1786-1789 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). *846 The Advisory Committee failed to prove that the statement was one which "the lawyer knows to be false or [was made] with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity." Rule 8.2 is embodied in the New York Times standard for proving defamation.

1991First Amendment interests far outweigh a purpose of "maintaining respect for the courts." See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 22-26 , 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1786-1789 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). *846 The Advisory Committee failed to prove that the statement was one which "the lawyer knows to be false or [was made] with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity." Rule 8.2 is embodied in the New York Times standard for proving defamation.

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm’n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm’n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm’n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1991See Matter of Johnson, 240 Kan. 334 , 729 P.2d 1175, 1180-81 (1986); Matter of Terry, 271 Ind. 499 , 394 N.E.2d 94, 95 (1979), cert. denied sub nom., Terry v. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Comm'n, 444 U.S. 1077 , 100 S.Ct. 1025 , 62 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980).

1987The New York Times rule emphasizes the need for an appellate court to make an independent examination of the entire record; Rule 52(a) never forbids such an examination, and indeed our seminal decision on the rule expressly contemplated a review of the entire record, stating that a “finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Gypsum Co., supra, 333 U.S. [364] at 395, 68 S.Ct. [525] at 542 [ 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ] (emphasi

1982For instance: Glover v. Herald Company, 549 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. banc 1977) cited by the news medium defendants for the general argument that the “New York Times and cases of that genre are applicable to the press in Missouri” decides only that as to a public official the New York Times privilege standard for liability still applies — a matter not relevant nor disputed by the implications of petition brought by a private individual.

1982See Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245 . 250. 95 S.Ct. 465 . 469. 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974); Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78 , 85 N.6 (D.C.App.1980); Nimmer, The Right to Speak From Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 Cal.L.Rev. 935 (1968). 23 .

1982J., concurring, l.c. 164, 87 S.Ct. 1996 ] “by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large” and also those who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions.” Then, in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) a plurality of the United States Supreme Court averted the focus of inquiry altogether from the status of the person defamed [a public figure or public official] to the event reported to determine whether the New York Times privilege— and actual malice test — appertained. 21 That constituti

1982J., concurring, l.c. 164, 87 S.Ct. 1996 ] “by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large” and also those who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions.” Then, in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 , 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) a plurality of the United States Supreme Court averted the focus of inquiry altogether from the status of the person defamed [a public figure or public official] to the event reported to determine whether the New York Times privilege— and actual malice test — appertained. 21 That constituti

1982Then in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 443 U.S. 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979) the United States Supreme Court once again repudiated newsworthiness as a determinant for the application of the New York Times privilege against news medium liability and reaffirmed the Gertz public figure — private person test to hold [l.c. 167, 99 S.Ct. 2707 ]: “A private individual is not automatically transformed into a public figure just by becoming involved in or associated with a matter that attracts public attention” — in that ease, a criminal event.

1982Then in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 443 U.S. 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979) the United States Supreme Court once again repudiated newsworthiness as a determinant for the application of the New York Times privilege against news medium liability and reaffirmed the Gertz public figure — private person test to hold [l.c. 167, 99 S.Ct. 2707 ]: “A private individual is not automatically transformed into a public figure just by becoming involved in or associated with a matter that attracts public attention” — in that ease, a criminal event.

1982Williams v. KCMO Broadcasting Division, etc., 472 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App.1971) was an action for invasion of privacy by one caught up in a mass arrest procedure — then transmitted to the public by television although he committed no crime.