Furgason v. Clausen

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court.

Although I question the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff was not a limited public figure,1 I would rest affirmance on other grounds. I believe that defendants are not liable for two independent reasons: (1) their article was protected by the common law privilege to publish a fair report of an official public record, and (2) they did not act with the degree of fault required for liability to be imposed.

Both the fair-report privilege and the requirement of fault derive from constitutional principles and public policy of the utmost…