False Statements of Fact

Question 1

New York Times v. Sullivan

Answer 1

Facts: Sullivan alleged that 4 negroes and the NYT libeled him by making statements in a full page ad in the NYT. He was never mentioned by name, but said “police” referred to him because he was the commissioner. Most of the statements in the ad were embellished or false. Sullivan won the case and won $500k.
Issue: What is the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State’s power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct?
Holding: Reversed. Criticism of government officials’ conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations. There should be a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. The Constitution delimits a state’s power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. An impersonal attack cannot be assigned to an individual government official.

1. Public Official (now expanded to public figures) 
2. Defamatory falsehood 
3. Relate to official conduct 
4. Actual Malice
	a. Knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard for whether it is false  Burden of Proof= clear and convincing evdience

Question 2

Non-newsworthy Disclosures of Private Information

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

Answer 2

Facts: Six youths were indicted for the rape and murder of a 17 year old girl. The name of the victim was not released before trial. Wassell, a reporter, learned of the names on the first day of the trial. That night, Wassell used the victims name in a broadcast. (name was obtained from public records)
Issue: Whether a State may extend a cause of action for damages for invasion of privacy caused by the publication of the name of a deceased rape victim which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime.
Holding: No, the state cannot protect this speech. The commission of crime, prosecutions resulting from it, and judicial proceedings arising from the prosecutions are without question events of legitimate concern to the public and fall within the responsibility of the press to report. Also, the interests in privacy fade when the info involved already appears on the public record. A public benefit is performed by the reporting of the true contents of public records.
The truthful disclosure of private facts concerning an individual constitutes a tort if the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not in itself newsworthy.
There is no 1st amendment right to satisfy public curiosity and publish lurid gossip about private lives.

Question 3

Threats

Answer 3

Threat: a statement of intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone if she does not do something the person making the statement wants her to do.

Question 4

Bridges v. California

Answer 4

Facts: Litigation between two unions. The loser of the litigation, Bridges, published a copy of a telegram that he sent to the Secretary of Labor describing the judge’s decision as “outrageous” and suggesting that if the decision were enforced his union would call a strike that would tie up the port of Los Angeles. Bridges was found guilty of contempt of court.

Issue: Can the telegram speech be prohibited?

Holding: This telegram does not pass the clear and present danger test. A strike is not prohibited and the judge should have seen a strike coming after the decision.

Dissent: To be punishable, a publication must refer to a matter under consideration and constitute in effect a threat to its impartial disposition. It must be calculated to create an atmospheric pressure incompatible with rational, impartial adjudication. But to interfere with the justice it need not succeed.

Question 5

Watts v. United States

Answer 5

Watts, in front of a small group, said, “I…received my draft classification…I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” This speech is not unconstitutional because the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by Watts did not constitute a threat within the meaning of the statute.

Question 6

Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists

Answer 6

Facts: Δ establishes a website that states that its purpose is to collect dossiers on abortionists in anticipation that one day that can hold them on trial for crimes against humanity, lists the names and addresses of abortion providers, includes photos with ‘Wanted’ style backgrounds, and crosses out the names of abortion providers who have been murdered.

COA Holding: The Δ should be held liable in damages and enjoined because the site constituted an unprotected threat. “If they had merely endorsed or encouraged the violent actions their speech would be protected.” Reasonable standard to determine if a threat: whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the makes communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault. The only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat with the intent to intimidate. The use of the ‘wanted’ poster followed by murder constitutes a threat. They connote something they do not literally say, yet both the actor and the recipient get the message. (Doctors wore bullet proof vests)

Dissent: It is not illegal to merely say things that would frighten or intimidate the listener. The statements sole reason was to intimidate the doctors into ceasing their abortion-related activities. A statement does not become a true threat because it instills fear in a listener. In order to be a threat, the statement must send the message that the speakers themselves, or individuals acting in concert with them, will engage in physical violence. Only categories restricted are true threat, incitement, fighting words, etc. Encouragement or advocacy of violence is protected speech, unless it fails the clear and present danger test.

Question 7

True threat:

Answer 7

• the speaker knowingly or recklessly made a statement that would frighten or intimidate the victim with the threat of harm
• the speaker knowingly or recklessly suggested that the threat would be carried out by the speaker or his coconspirators
• a reasonable person who heard the statement would conclude that it was meant to threaten the victim with harm