Times v. Sullivan: The sequels

Times v. Sullivan:The sequels

A landmark libel decision leadsto years of defining its reach

Actual malice and public figures

• Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases– Associated Press v. Walker– Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts


• Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases

• All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities


• Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases

• All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities

• Limited-purpose public figures have thrust themselves into the spotlight on a particular issue

Private figures and negligence

• Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies



• The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974)



• The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974)

• Private figures need not show actual malice, but they must at least show negligence — the end of no-fault libel

Actual malice and state of mind

• In Herbert v. Lando, the Supreme Court ruled that a libel plaintiff attempting to show actual malice may inquire into a news organization’s “metal process”

Burden of proof

• In Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps (1986), the Court ruled that the plaintiff must prove the offending report is false

What is “reckless disregard”?

• Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton



• Journal News avoided sources that would cast doubt on its story




• Journalists must have “entertained serious doubt” as to truth of story




• Journalists must have “entertained serious doubt” as to truth of story

• Story was technically accurate

Opinion versus facts

• In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), the Court ruled that factual assertions could be the subject of a libel suit even if they were labeled “opinion”

Opinion versus facts

• In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), the Court ruled that factual assertions could be the subject of a libel suit even if they were labeled “opinion”

• Pure opinion, in the form of the “fair comment” privilege, remains in effect

Two libel defenses

• “Fair report” or “public record” defense– Journalist enjoys qualified privilege if she

accurately and fairly reports official proceedings

Two libel defenses

• “Fair report” or “public record” defense– Journalist enjoys qualified privilege if she

accurately and fairly reports official proceedings

– Privilege ends on the steps of the courthouse or City Hall

Two libel defenses

• “Fair report” or “public record” defense• “Wire service” defense

– News organization can’t be held liable for running a libelous story from a reputable wire service

Two libel defenses

• “Fair report” or “public record” defense• “Wire service” defense

– News organization can’t be held liable for running a libelous story from a reputable wire service

– Privilege ends if it can be shown that the news organization harbored doubts

Times v. Sullivan: The sequels

Education

Transcript of Times v. Sullivan: The sequels