1. Times v. Sullivan: The sequels A landmark libel decision leads to years of defining its reach

2. 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

3. Actual malice and public figures Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities

4. Actual malice and public figures 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

5. Private figures and negligence Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies

6. 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)

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

8. 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”

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

10. What is “reckless disregard”? Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 Story was technically accurate

14. 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”

15. 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

16. Two libel defenses “Fair comment” or “public record” defense –Journalist enjoys qualified privilege if she accurately and fairly reports official proceedings

17. Two libel defenses “Fair comment” 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

18. Two libel defenses “Fair comment” or “public record” defense “Wire service” defense –News organization can’t be held liable for running a libelous story from a reputable wire service

19. Two libel defenses “Fair comment” 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