Libel

Libel and the Court DEFINITION: Written falsehoods that lead to defamation of character (being false AND damaging is key). This is NOT a case of breaking a criminal statute. It is a PERSONAL tort (wrongful act). Until 1964 states were allowed to define their own standards for libel (civil claims). There can be both compensatory and punitive damages. KEY CASE: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Does the rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridge the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes. 9-0 vote. The new rule we invoke here prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves the statement was made with actual malice– that is with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.

Post Sullivan Keys to Butts (1967) and Walker (1967): Decreased the burden to prove malice: “highly unreasonable conduct” (although only a plurality agreed). Increase coverage of the Sullivan test to public figures!

Post Sullivan Time Inc. v. Hill (1967). Matters of public interest are now included in the Sullivan test. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971). A plurality agreed with the Hill standard. Gertz v. Welch (1974).

Gertz v. Welch Is a newspaper that publishes defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure liable for injury inflicted by those statements? Yes. 5-4 vote. We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the states may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) May a person bring a lawsuit for libel and infliction of emotional distress for a parody that did not purport to be factually accurate? No. 8-0 vote. While the First Amendment has limits, public figures and officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with actual malice.

Post Hustler Masson v. New Yorker (1991) Malice can include: Using verbatim quotes that are not really quotes. BUT, if the change in wording does not change the meaning then there is no harm.

Overview Public figures must prove libel. Any story that deals with public officials, public figures, or the public interest. Private citizens are protected. Sullivan standard still applies to public figures.