Exam 2 Court Cases Flashcards
Farmers Education and Cooperative Union v. WDAY (1959)
Facts: W.C. Townley, a colorful independent candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Dakota, accused the FECUA of being controlled by Communists over WDAY. FECUA was in the tough position of either editing a politician’s words (defamation) or leaving it unedited (going against FCC)
Importance: The U.S. Supreme Court declared that broadcasters are immune from liability for defamation by political candidates in political ads.
Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)
Facts: Beauharnais distributed racist literature. He was prosecuted under an Illinois group libel statute (anyone that is in the group being defamed can sue), but this law later lapsed, even though it’s constitutional.
Importance: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defamation directed at ethnic and racial groups can be illegal even when it is not directed at a specific individual.
Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait (1952)
Facts: In a book, U.S.A. Confidential, it was asserted that the women working at the Neiman-Marcus department store in Dallas were “hookers” and the men in menswear were “fairies.” There were 300 women and 25 men identified. The women were not able to sue, but the men were.
Importance: A court ruled identification can occur when defamation is aimed at a small group. The larger the group, the less likely identification occurs.
Cosgrove Studio and Camera v. Pane (1962)
Facts: Cosgrove ran an ad promising customers a free roll of film for every roll brought in for processing. Pane warned readers in his ad. “You Get Nothing for Nothing.” Pane said he would not inflate his film processing prices to give film away.
Importance: Identification can occur even when the person/business is not specifically named in the defamatory statement.
Garrison v. Louisiana (1964)
Facts: Jim Garrison, the district attorney for New Orleans Parish, attacked judges stating they were lazy, “vacation-minded,” and sympathetic to criminals. This was criminal libel.
Importance: USSC said state governments can’t censor critics of the government without due process and that the role of the citizen critic of gov. must be protected by the First Amendment. For all practical purposes declared criminal libel unconstitutional.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Facts: A Montgomery, Alabama, police official sued the NY Times for a March 29, 1960, advertisement purchased by a committee of civil rights activists. The ad contained several false statements and minor inaccuracies.
Importance: USSC declared that public officials may recover for defamation upon proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. This established the “New York Times Standard.”
Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966)
Facts: Rosenblatt, a reporter, wrote a story critical of the manner that a county-owned ski resort was managed by Baer.
Importance: USSC ruled that the “Public Official” criteria was designated to include anyone in the hierarchy of government employees who have substantial responsibility for the conduct of government affairs.
Walker v. A.P. (1967)
Facts: A.P. reported that retired army officer Major General Edwin Walker encouraged violence and led a charge against federal marshals during the integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962.
Importance: USSC declared courts will seek to determine whether a journalist had, or should have had serious doubts about the truth of defamatory statements. Element of time to check and verify sources is very important in this case. The journalist followed good journalistic technique and had no reason to believe it was false.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967)
Facts: The Saturday Evening Post reported that Georgia football coach Wally Butts fixed a football game with Alabama. The Post relied on the unsupported testimony of a check forger.
Importance: USSC declared that they will examine the credibility of sources, believability of the defamatory allegations and the effort made to investigate the statements in question. The media had plenty of time to verify the facts of this story, but didn’t. Bad journalistic technique.
Goldwater v. Ginzburg (1969)
Facts: Ralph Ginzburg, editor of Fact, asserted Goldwater suffered from a mental disease. In a second article he edited responses to a mail survey from psychiatrists to distort their comments about Goldwater.
Importance: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that creating false statements to support one’s predetermined view is evidence of actual malice.
Cohen v. New York Herald Tribune (1970)
Facts: Jimmy Breslin wrote a satirical article on a mob hit that was witnessed by Cohen.
Importance: A New York court ruled that “mere exaggeration, irony or wit” does not make an article defamatory. Parody is protected.
Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Assn. v. Bresler (1970)
Facts: The Greenbelt News Review wrote a story in which Bresler, a land developer, was charged with blackmail because he offered to sell land to the city only after the city rezoned a different parcel he owned. Innocent construction rule applies.
Importance: The USSC stated that the use of words, such as “blackmail,” when used in a public forum was determined to be non-actionable.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)
Facts: George Rosenbloom, a little known businessman, was arrested for selling obscene material. News of his arrest was aired over the radio.
Importance: The USSC ruled that the burden of proof imposed on public officials extends to anyone involved in a matter of public concern, regardless of whether they were famous or unknown.
Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (1971)
Facts: Leonard Damron, running for the office of mayor of Crystal River, Florida, was falsely reported by the Star-Banner of having been charged with perjury.
Importance: The USSC decided that no matter how remote in time or place a charge of criminal conduct against a public official is, it is always relevant to his/her fitness for office.
Gertz v. Welch (1974)
Facts: Elmer Gertz, an attorney, was libeled by an American Opinion article. The magazine charged that Gertz had engineered a “frame-up” of a policeman convicted for shooting a young boy.
Importance: The USSC defined a public figure as one who thrusts oneself into the public arena involuntarily or assumes a role voluntarily in which publication is expected or assumed. States may define the level of proof for a private person.
Time v. Firestone (1976)
Facts: Mrs. Firestone sued Time after a “Milestones” item incorrectly reported that Russell Firestone had won a divorce on the grounds “of extreme cruelty and adultery.”
Importance: The USSC ruled that Mrs. Firestone did not assume any role of special prominence in the affairs of society.
Herbert v. Lando (1979)
Facts: A 1973 “60 Minutes” broadcast questioned allegations by Colonel Anthony Herbert of an official cover-up of atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.
Importance: The USSC held that a journalist’s mind may be probed in a libel case in order to establish actual malice.
Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association (1979)
Facts: Ilya Wolston refused to testify in 1958 before a federal grand jury investigating Soviet spy activities. Reader’s Digest reported this event 20 years later in a story concerning famous spy cases.
Importance: The USSC said that Wolston did not thrust himself into the forefront of the controversy, but was “dragged unwillingly” into the spotlight.
Gazette v. Harris (1985)
Facts – This litigation involved three cases:
- Misidentification of sex offender
- Misidentification of married, pregnant, sexual assault victim as “Miss”
- Misidentification of a child’s accidental death as a case of abuse
Importance: The Virginia State Supreme Court declared that negligence is the legal standard of proof for private individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)
Facts: Greenmoss Builders, a construction company, had a credit-reporting agency falsely say the company had filed for bankruptcy. In reality an employee of D & B confused records of a former Greenmoss employee with the firm.
Importance: The USSC held that credit reports are a private matter and not a matter of “public concern.”
