mary alice firestone had sued her husband. he had sued her back for adultery and cruelty and all of this stuff. the trial record of the trial had some colorful comments. according to testimony on behalf of the defendant, extramarital exka paid -- escapades of the plaintiff were bizarre and would have made dr. floral's hair curl. testimony of the husband indicated he was guilty of bounding from one bed to another. with the erotic zest of a setter. so the divorce was granted, the judge said -- while he discounted some of this stuff, nonetheless it's the court's finding that neither party is domesticated. therefore, the marriage was at an end for lack of domestication. time magazine reported this in a milestone in about one sentence that more or less said the divorce had been granted on the ground of adultery. mary alice firestone sued in florida because in her argument any idiot would know that you can't get alimony granted if the grounds for divorce were adultery. so the last of domestication must mean something else even thoug

the case came to the supreme court where justice renquist for the court found that mary alice firestone was not a public figure, notwithstanding the 47 articles in the miami he rolled and the articles in the press that she held and the fact that she was a member of the sporting set in palm beach and was regularly covered. and justice marshall dissented saying she had -- what'd he say, that we must assume that it was by choice that mrs. firestone became an active member of these sporting set. then, the thing that caught his attention was the alternative suggestion from the court that although times report was certainly a rationale interpretation of an ambiguous court document that that was not a defense. and the justice thought that was outrageous and the -- get leeway and that was the essence of dissent. by basically he loved reporters, loved tallying around, he sort of grew up in the front page era ben hicks and charles mcarthur's play. >> let me broaden out the question, other than his views in law were there other -- >> so this was a mining statute. the required holder of certain min