On June 27, 1962, Phil NAME_1, a candidate for public office, made a television speech in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. During this speech, NAME_1 accused his political opponent of being a Communist and of being involved in criminal activities with the head of the local Teamsters Union. Finally, NAME_1 implicated NAME_2, an East Baton Rouge deputy sheriff, in a scheme to move money between the Teamsters Union and NAME_1’s political opponent.
NAME_3 successfully sued NAME_1 for defamation. Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that NAME_3 did not show NAME_1 acted with “malice.” NAME_3 then appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. That court held that, although public figures forfeit some of their First Amendment protection from defamation, NAME_1 accused NAME_3 of a crime with utter disregard of whether the remarks were true. Finally, that court held that the First Amendment protects uninhibited, robust debate, rather than an open season to shoot down the good name of anyone who happens to be a public servant.

first_party: NAME_4
second_party: NAME_5

You must answer the winner of case with only one word (first_party or second_party)