Chapter 4: Defamation

Question 1

Defamation

Answer 1

Speech that tends to lower a person’s reputation before others, causes that person to be shunned or exposes that person to ridicule

Question 2

Libel v. Slander

Answer 2

Libel: printed defamation → easier to prove and punished more harshly (includes broadcast)

Slander: spoken defamation → harder to prove, punished more leniently

Question 3

Libel per quod

Answer 3

the speech is libelous only in its specific context

Question 4

Libel per se

Answer 4

The words themselves are libelous
1. accusing someone of a crime
2. asserting that someone has a contagious or offensive disease
3. attacking a person’s reputation in his occupation
4. charging someone with sexual immorality

Question 5

4 Requirements to Prove Defamation

Answer 5

1. Publication: the message is communicated to a 3rd party
2. Identification: by name, by inference, or by group
3. Defamation
4. Fault

Question 6

4 Defenses for Defamation Cases

Answer 6

1. Truth
2. Previously tarnished reputation
3. Privileged Communication
4. Constitutional Defense

Question 7

Privileged Communication (2 types)

Answer 7

Absolute: complete immunity
ex: lawmakers on the floor of Congress, matters of safety, etc

Qualified: some protection, not immunity
ex: scientific or artistic critique

Question 8

Actual damages

Answer 8

can be precisely calculated

Question 9

General damages

Answer 9

reflect the jury’s subjective opinion of the seriousness of the crime

Question 10

Punitive damages

Answer 10

awarded as a form of punishment for the defendant

Question 11

Pring v. Penthouse

Answer 11

Facts: Penthouse Magazine published a story about a “fictional” Miss Wyoming that was almost identical to the real one. Pring sued for defamation and won 25 million in punitive damages.

Holding: A circuit court reversed the ruling stating that a reasonable person could differentiate between fact and fiction

Significance: Demonstrates the role of punitive damages

Question 12

Beauharnais v Illinois

Answer 12

Facts: Beauharnais was convicted under Illinois group libel law for circulating flyers that advocated against allowing Blacks into a certain neighborhood

Holding: SCOTUS upheld the decision saying that if speech that harms an individual can be prosecuted then so can speech that harms a group

Significance: SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of group libel laws

Question 13

New York Times v. Sullivan

Answer 13

Facts: Sullivan, the commissioner of public safety, sues the NYT for a civil rights ad that criticized police actions and had minor factual inaccuracies (truth was the standard of fault in Alabama)

Holding: SCOTUS overturns the ruling and Brennan asserts that since Sullivan was a public official, he must prove actual malice

Significance: created the “actual malice” test for public officials

Actual Malice: Knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth

Question 14

Curtis Publishing v. Butts

Answer 14

Facts: Butts, a football coach sued Curtis for publishing an article that suggested he fixed a game

Holding: SCOTUS remand the case because Butts was a public figure and needed to prove actual malice

Significance: applies actual malice to public figures

Question 15

Associated Press v. Walker

Answer 15

Facts: Walker, a military leader, sues AP for accusing him of inciting insurrection

Holding: SCOTUS remands the case because Walker was a public figure and needed to prove actual malice

Significance: applies actual malice to public figures

Question 16

Rosenblatt v. Baer

Answer 16

Facts: Baer, supervisor of a public recreation area, sued Rosenblatt for an article he published that accused Baer of financial impropriety.

Holding: SCOTUS sides with Rosenblatt saying that Baer is a public official

Significance: broadens the definition of a public official to include both large and small government possitions

Question 17

Monitor Patriot v. Roy

Answer 17

Facts: Roy sued Monitor Patriot for insulting him while he was running for Senate. The lower court sided with Roy because the paper wrote on a private matter

Holding: SCOTUS reversed the decision saying that private matters are important when electing officials and thus are not exempt from the actual malice test

Significance: applied actual malice to public figures’ private lives

Question 18

St. Amant v. Thompson

Answer 18

Facts: St. Amant and Thompson were political candidates. St. Amant claimed Thompson was corrupt during a speech. Thompson sued.

Holding: SCOTUS ruled in favor of St. Amant because he believed what he was saying was true and did not have the time/ability to check his facts

Significance: if the defendant thought they were telling the truth and cannot verify the truth then it doesn’t qualify as actual malice

Question 19

Time v. Pape

Answer 19

Facts: Pape, police chief, sues Time for publishing a story on police brutality using an account from a government report

Holding: SCOTUS sided with Time because it did not act with reckless disregard for the truth, the government report was ambiguous

Significance: A publisher cannot be faulted for believing bad information, (strengthens the actual malice test)

Question 20

Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron

Answer 20

Facts: Damron sues Ocala Star-Banner for publishing a story that accidentally assigned his brother’s criminal record to him

Holding: SCOTUS sides with the publisher because it was an “honest mistake” not actual malice

Significance: a mistake does not constitute reckless disregard (strengthens the actual malice test)

Question 21

Gertz v. Welch

Answer 21

Facts: Gertz was the lawyer for a family whose son was killed by the police. Welch’s publishing company released an article denouncing Gertz. Gertz sues.

Holding: SCOTUS sides with Gertz because he is not a public figure

Significance: (1) the court established the difference between all-purpose and limited public figures (2) The minimum standard of fault for a private person is negligence (3) if a state uses negligence as the standard of fault, the plaintiff can only collect actual damages

Question 22

Philadelphia Newspaper v. Hepps

Answer 22

Facts: The newspaper wrote an article accusing Thrifty stores of organized crime. The primary stockholder, Hepps, sued and won because PA placed the burden of proof on the defendant

Holding: SCOTUS sided with the newspaper and established that the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff

Significance: Shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff in defamation cases

Question 23

Milkovich v Lorain Journal

Answer 23

Facts: The Lorain Journal claimed that Milkovich, a wrestling coach, lied during a hearing about inciting a crowd

Holding: SCOTUS overturned the ruling stating that calling someone a liar was not a protected “opinion”

Significance: established that not all opinions are protected from defamation suits and gave vague guidelines for assessing opinions

Guidelines:
1. Loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language
2. General tenor of the speech
3. Can it be proven as true or false?

Question 24

Masson v New Yorker

Answer 24

Facts: New Yorker published an unflattering story about Masson, a psychoanalyst, based on tape recordings. Masson sues for defamation because some of the quotes were fabricated

Holding: SCOTUS sides with the New Yorker

Significance: quotes can be fabricated so long as they do not change the expressed meaning

Question 25

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(SLAPPS)

Answer 25

Large organizations sue individuals and organizations that criticize them in an attempt to silence them by forcing them to spend time/money defending themselves in court

Anti-SLAPP and SLAPP back laws have arisen in an attempt to curtail this practice

Question 26

Libel Tourism

The SPEECH act of 2010

Answer 26

The practice of bringing defamation suits to countries with less strict standards

The SPEECH act bars enforcement of foreign defamation judgments unless they meet the U.S. standards