Constitutional Law Flashcards
Star cannot successfully sue News under a libel theory because the facts do not appear to support a finding that the reporting was done with actual malice.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that public officials seeking to recover damages in a defamation action (libel or slander) must prove that the defendant reporter acted with “actual malice,” defined as “knowledge that [the published defamation] was false” or “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Proof of negligent falsehood is insufficient to permit liability for defamation.
The Supreme Court has extended this standard to public figures who assume “roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.
There is no First Amendment privilege giving the press immunity from liability arising under generally applicable law, even when in pursuit of a news story on a matter of public concern.
The First Amendment does not shield the press from liability arising under generally applicable law not aimed at suppression of free speech. In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991), the United States Supreme Court stated that “generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the news. Enforcement of such general laws against the press is not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied to enforcement against other persons or organizations.”
Here, Scoop’s actions in breaking into the hotel constituted trespass under generally applicable law that does not single out the press for special treatment. Scoop, like any other member of the public, is subject to tort law that applies to all members of society, even when he is engaged in the journalistic activities of gathering and reporting the news. Thus, the First Amendment is no shield to liability for him, and the hotel can collect damages for his trespass.
News is probably immune from liability for invading Lex’s privacy because the published information was lawfully obtained and involves a matter of public concern.
In a series of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that where a media defendant has lawfully obtained a private fact, such as the identity of a rape victim, the First Amendment shields the media from liability as long as the news story involves a matter of public concern. In some jurisdictions, the First Amendment pro-tection is incorporated directly into the tort rule, and the disclosure of private facts is not tortious if the facts are “of legitimate concern to the public.”
