¶1Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
¶2I concur in that portion of the majority opinion affirming the order of the Superior Court reversing appellant’s conviction for anonymous publication. I must dissent, however, from the holding of the majority in reversing the criminal libel convictions.
¶3In Commonwealth v. Armao, 446 Pa. 325, 286 A.2d 626 (1972) (Jones, C. J. and O’Brien, J. dissenting), three of the five justices participating in the case were of the opinion that our criminal libel statute, Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §412, 18 P.S. §4412 (now repealed), was unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I agree with the majority that our decision in Armaowas binding on the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County and that it was binding on the Superior Court. The decision, however, is not binding upon this Court. I did not feel in Armaothat our criminal libel statute unconstitutionally infringed upon the First Amendment; I am not persuaded to the contrary today. See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed. 2d 789 (1974).