SER Lincoln Journal et al. v. Hon. F. Jane Hustead, Judge, et al. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 35734 State of West Virginia ex rel. The Lincoln Journal, Inc., Thomas A. Robinson, Individually, and Ron Gregory, Individually v. The Honorable Jane F. Hustead, Timothy Butcher, and Bobby Adkins Ketchum, J., concurring: FILED May 2, 2011 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I completely agree with the majority s opinion. I write separately to emphasize that speech like that used by the Lincoln Journal is entitled to special protection in the courts. Debate on matters of public concern should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. 1 This is because speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. 2 The U.S. Supreme Court has therefore repeatedly emphasized that speech on matters of public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, 3 and is entitled to special protection. Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and . . . inflict great pain. . . . [But] as a Nation we have chosen . . . to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. 4 I therefore whole-heartedly concur with the majority s decision. 1 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). 2 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964). 3 Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983). 4 Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___, ___ (March 2, 2011) (Slip Op. at 15).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.