Chapter 4: Defamation Flashcards
Defamation
Speech that tends to lower a person’s reputation before others, causes that person to be shunned or exposes that person to ridicule
Libel v. Slander
Libel: printed defamation → easier to prove and punished more harshly (includes broadcast)
Slander: spoken defamation → harder to prove, punished more leniently
Libel per quod
the speech is libelous only in its specific context
Libel per se
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
4 Requirements to Prove Defamation
- Publication: the message is communicated to a 3rd party
- Identification: by name, by inference, or by group
- Defamation
- Fault
4 Defenses for Defamation Cases
- Truth
- Previously tarnished reputation
- Privileged Communication
- Constitutional Defense
Privileged Communication (2 types)
Absolute: complete immunity
ex: lawmakers on the floor of Congress, matters of safety, etc
Qualified: some protection, not immunity
ex: scientific or artistic critique
Actual damages
can be precisely calculated
General damages
reflect the jury’s subjective opinion of the seriousness of the crime
Punitive damages
awarded as a form of punishment for the defendant
Pring v. Penthouse
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
Beauharnais v Illinois
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
New York Times v. Sullivan
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
Curtis Publishing v. Butts
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
Associated Press v. Walker
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
Rosenblatt v. Baer
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
Monitor Patriot v. Roy
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
St. Amant v. Thompson
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
Time v. Pape
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)
Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron
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)
Gertz v. Welch
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
Philadelphia Newspaper v. Hepps
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
Milkovich v Lorain Journal
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?
Masson v New Yorker
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
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(SLAPPS)
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
Libel Tourism
The SPEECH act of 2010
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
