This is аn appeal from an order sustaining a motion to dismiss a libel action instituted by Appеllant, retired Major General Edwin Walker. In his complaint, Appellant alleged that the defendants Courier-Journal, Louisville Times Company and WHAS, Inc., falsely and maliciously reported that Appellant participated in riots in Oxford, Mississippi by leading a charge of brick throwing students against United States Marshals. The riots occurred as a result of the intеgration of white and negro students at the University of Mississippi. Appellant alleges in his cоmplaint that he:
“-* * * was * * * a person of political prominence who had in publiс announcements vigorously asserted his adherence to accepted аnd constitutionally defined limitations upon the powers of the central government and to principles of separation of powers as between the centrаl government and the several States.”
On the basis of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
The Supreme Court said in Rosenblatt v. Baer,
“The motivating force for the decision in New York Times was twofold. We expressed a profound national cоmmitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that [such debate] may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unplеasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. (Citation omitted). Therе is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate аbout those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolutiоn of those issues. Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally prоtected area of free discussion.
******
“Society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation. But in cases like the present, there is tension between this interest and the values nurtured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thе thrust of New York Times is that when interests in public discussion are particularly strong, as they werе in that case, the Constitution limits the protections afforded by the law of defamation.”
In footnote 12, the Court said:
“We are treating here only the element of public position, since that is all that has been argued and briefed. We intimate no view whatever whether there are оther bases for applying the New York Times standards — for example that in a partiсular case the interests in reputation are relatively insubstantial, because thе subject of discussion has thrust himself into the vortex of the discussion of a question of pressing public concern.”
It is apparent, and Appellant alleges in his petition, that hе is a person of political prominence, and is a person in a position significantly to influence the resolution of issues of national importance. It is alsо apparent that Appellant involved himself dramatically into the racial сrises in Oxford, Mississippi; that he “thrust himself into the vortex of the discussion of a question of pressing public concern.” The motivating force of the Times decision compels its applicability here. In a thorough analysis of the Times decision, and subsequent decisions, the Court, in Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company,
*191
However, there is no constitutional proteсtion for a false statement “made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
Unlike New Yоrk Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, and Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, supra, Appellant wаs prevented from adducing proofs which could present a jury question on the issue оf malice. Whether there was malice was a fact question placed in issue by the complaint, and no affidavits or depositions were filed which may have removеd this issue from the case.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion.