[1] Maurice S. Hepps was the principal stockholder of a corporation that had a chain of stores selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks.

They held that libel plaintiffs must shoulder the burden of proving falsity, when the article in question relates to public concern.

He writes to note his adherence to his view that a distinction based on whether or not the defendant is part of the media is not reconcilable with a First Amendment principle that states that "the inherent worth of speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public is not dependent on the identity of the source".

He starts out by stating that the majority decision will only make a difference in cases in which a private individual can prove he was libeled by a defendant who was at least negligent.

He writes that as long as publishers are protected by having the burden of proof be on the plaintiff, there is little basis for a concern that a large amount of true speech is deterred unless a private person who is the victim of malicious libel can prove falsity.