Libel and Privacy: Court Cases

Question 1

What was the background of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan?

Answer 1

Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

Question 2

What was the issue behind New York Times Co. v. Sullivan?

Answer 2

Did Alabama’s libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?

Question 3

What was the ruling of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan?

Answer 3

Decision: 9 votes for New York Times, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan’s case collapsed.

Question 4

What was the background of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts?

Answer 4

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) the Court held that public officials in libel cases must show that a statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” These two cases concern libel as it pertains to public figures who are not public officials. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts concerns an article published in the March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Wallace Butts conspired with University of Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to fix a 1962 football game in Alabama’s favor. The article’s source was George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman who had allegedly overheard a telephone conversation between the coaches. Butts brought and won a libel suit against Curtis Publishing, owner of the periodical. Soon after the Court’s ruling in New York Times, Curtis moved for a new trial. The trial judge rejected the argument because Butts was not a public official. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s decision on the basis that Curtis had waived any constitutional challenges by not raising such questions at trial. Associated Press v. Walker concerns dispatch reports of rioting that occurred on the campus of the University of Mississippi on September 30, 1962. The dispatches, authored by a correspondent on the scene, reported that Edwin A. Walker, a private citizen and political activist, had personally led a violent crowd attempting to prevent federal marshals from enforcing the court- ordered enrollment of an African-American. Walker denied the report, and filed a libel suit in the state courts of Texas. A jury found in Walker’s favor, but the judge in the case refused to award punitive damages, finding that there was no malicious intent. The judge also specifically noted that New York Times was inapplicable. On appeal, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court of Texas declined to hear the case.

Question 5

What was the issue behind Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts?

Answer 5

In light of the Court’s ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, were the allegations made against Butts and Walker libelous?

Question 6

What was the ruling of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts?

Answer 6

Decision: 5 votes for Butts, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court noted significant differences between the circumstances of these cases and those of New York Times. In particular, criticism of Butts or Walker, unlike a government official, could not be conflated with criticism of public policy. Thus, the Court reasoned that public figures who are not public officials may recover damages for libel stemming from false reports based on “highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.” The Court concluded that Curtis’ investigation of its allegations against Butts failed to meet this standard. The company printed a questionably reliable source’s allegations without any attempt to verify his claims, and the story in question was not a pressing event or immediately newsworthy. The Court thus affirmed the lower courts’ denial of a retrial. The situation in Butts contrasted with Walker, where the AP relied on a correspondent on the scene of an event that was immediately newsworthy. The Court thus denied Walker’s claims to damages.

Question 7

What was the background of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc?

Answer 7

Gertz was an attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family’s son. In a magazine called American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a “Leninist” and a “Communist-fronter” because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost his libel suit because a lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

Question 8

.What was the issue behind Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc?

Answer 8

Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure?

Question 9

What was the ruling of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc?

Answer 9

Decision: 5 votes for Gertz, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly The Court reversed the lower court decision and held that Gertz’s rights had been violated. Justice Powell argued that the application of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. In the context of the opinion, Powell advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. However, continued Powell, the actual malice standard did not lose all significance in cases involving ordinary citizens as he advised states to use it in assessing claims for punitive damages by citizens suing for libel.

Question 10

What was the background of Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps?

Answer 10

In a series of articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer accused Hepps of links to organized crime and of capitalizing on that connection to influence the state legislature. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court favored Hepps and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true.

Question 11

What was the issue behind Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps?

Answer 11

Did the state supreme court’s decision violate the First Amendment?

Question 12

What was the ruling of Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps?

Answer 12

Decision: 5 votes for Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly Yes. Relying on its reasoning in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974), the Court reversed the state court’s decision. The Gertz standard for evaluating potentially libelous speech required that “the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages.”

Question 13

What was the background of Time, Inc. v. Firestone?

Answer 13

Mary Alice Firestone was married to Russell A. Firestone, Jr., an heir to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a counterclaim on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge granted the divorce but discounted much of the evidence concerning extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, Time, Inc., publisher of the weekly news magazine Time, ran an article one week after the divorce was granted, mentioning the alleged affairs. In the “Milestones” section of Time, the news of the Firestones’ divorce was published as follows: “DIVORCED. By Russell A. Firestone Jr., 41, heir to the tire fortune: Mary Alice Sullivan Firestone, 32, his third wife; a onetime Palm Beach schoolteacher; on grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery; after six years of marriage, one son; in West Palm Beach, Fla. The 17-month intermittent trial produced enough testimony of extramarital adventures on both sides, said the judge, ‘to make Dr. Freud’s hair curl.’” Following the publication, Mary Firestone filed suit in a Florida state court against Time, Inc., seeking $100,000 in damages for libel.

Question 14

What was the issue behind Time, Inc. v. Firestone?

Answer 14

Time alleged that Mary was a public figure and could not recover damages based on the ruling of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which protected media from liability in such suits except in cases where there is knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for truth. Both the state court and Florida Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure, using language defined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).

Question 15

What was the ruling of Time, Inc. v. Firestone?

Answer 15

In a 5-3 decision, with Justice Stevens abstaining, the Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure and upheld the Florida Supreme Court’s decision.

Question 16

What was the background of Harte Hanks Comm. v. Connaughton?

Answer 16

In November 1983, Daniel Connaughton unsuccessfully ran for the position of Municipal Judge of Hamilton, Ohio, losing to incumbent James Dolan. A local newspaper, the JournalNews, supported the incumbent Dolan. About a month before the election, Dolan’s Director of Court Services resigned his position and was subsequently arrested on perjury charges. On November 1, 1983, while a grand jury investigation of the charges was taking place, the JournalNews ran a front page article quoting Alice Thompson, a witness in the trial. Thompson was quoted as saying Connaughton had used “dirty tricks” and had offered both Thompson and her sister tangible benefits (including employment opportunities and a trip to Florida) “in appreciation” for Thompson’s testimony in the trial. Connaughton filed suit against Harte-Hanks Communications, the publisher of the JournalNews, alleging that its article had defamed him. He claimed the article was false, had injured his personal and professional and political reputation and was published on the grounds of actual malice. Harte-Hanks pushed for summary judgment, arguing that even if Thompson’s statements were false, the article was protected under the neutral reportage privilege. The District Court denied their motion, saying it could not be proven the article was written with disinterest. The case moved to trial, in which jurors listened to three separate interviews—two by JournalNews reporters and a third by Connaughton. The jury found that the reporting fulfilled three special verdicts for public figure libel: the article was defamatory, the article was false and the article was published with actual malice. The court awarded Connaughton $5,000 in compensatory damages and also $195,000 in punitive damages.

Question 17

What was the issue behind Harte Hanks Comm. v. Connaughton?

Answer 17

Harte-Hanks appealed, again citing the First Amendment defense against libel. Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision however, writing that the court’s ruling did not encroach upon the First Amendment rights of the publisher, and that the lower court was not incorrect in labeling the article as defamatory and false.

Question 18

What was the ruling of Harte Hanks Comm. v. Connaughton?

Answer 18

The Supreme Court decided the case in a 9-0 majority opinion delivered by John Paul Stevens, with separate concurring opinions from Byron White, Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Antonin Scalia also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment Majority Opinion[edit] Justice Stevens began his opinion by referencing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, which state that public figures, such as Connaughton, must definitively prove actual malice to be awarded damages in libel suits. He then referenced the case Hustler v. Falwell, which had occurred the year before, and had ruled that public figures “may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . without showing . . . that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made . . . with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.” However, citing St. Amant v. Thompson, Stevens ruled that the reporters had acted with “reckless disregard for the truth.” Stevens focused on Patsy Stephens, the elder sister of Alice Thompson. Stephens had been present when Connaughton had allegedly played “dirty” tricks with the sisters, and Thompson reported that Stephens could confirm the accusations against Connaughton. The editor of the JournalNews then instructed his employees to interview every witness to Connaughton and Thompson’s conversation—except Patsy Stephens. Every other witness to the exchange denied Stephens’ accusations. Justice Stevens wrote that a responsible newspaper would and should corroborate with obvious sources, particularly since Thompson had earlier assured that Stephens could confirm her charges, and Stephens would be the only witness to do so. Justice Stevens also wrote that “if the Journal News had serious doubts concerning the truth of Thompson’s remarks, but was committed to running the story, there was good reason not to interview Stephens.” Additionally, Justice Stevens noted that Jim Blount, editorial director for the JournalNews, had penned an editorial on October 30, two days before the article in question surfaced. This editorial predicted that more information concerning the impropriety and integrity of the candidates might surface in the next few days. Stevens wrote that this can be taken to be mean that the JournalNews had already decided to publish the article on October 30, well before it had verified its sources. Justice Stevens then explains that while public figures can legally endure more defamation than private persons, they are not completely unprotected by the courts, provided they can prove the defendants acted with actual malice. He finished his opinion by stating that, because of the inconsistencies with the JournalNews’ reporting, and because they deliberately ignored sources that would have either affirmed or denied Stephens’ allegations, the JournalNews was guilty of reckless disregard for the truth and, by extension, actual malice.

Question 19

What was the background of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.?

Answer 19

Milkovich was the wrestling coach at Maple Heights High School in Ohio. During the 1974 season, the team was involved in an altercation at a home match, during which several people were injured. After the altercation, the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OSHAA) placed the team on probation. Then, several parents and students sued the OSHAA, in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking a restraining order of the probation, on the grounds that due process had not been afforded to the members of the team. The court overturned the conviction and, the next day, Respondent published an article alleging that Petitioner had lied so the probation would be overturned. Petitioner brought suit, alleging defamation.

Question 20

What was the issue behind Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.?

Answer 20

Whether a newspaper can be held liable for defamation, when it publishes an article about a private figure which, albeit opinion, was designed as a character attack?

Question 21

What was the ruling of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.?

Answer 21

The Court reversed the lower court ruling that the article constituted a constitutionally protected opinion, and held that while the First Amendment does guarantee uninhibited speech, the important social values underlying the law of defamation recognize a strong interest in preventing and redressing character attacks. The First Amendment gives great leniency to newspapers and their journalists; however, the constitution also recognizes that defamation can exist, when an article is published specifically to attack another’s character.

Question 22

What was the background of Gazette v. Harris?

Answer 22

On November of 1981, appellees James William Harris, Virginia Mae Harris, his wife, and Barbara H. Sweeney filed separate motions for judgment against appellant The Gazette, Inc., seeking compensatory and punitive damages caused by an allegedly libelous statement published in the July 30, 1981 editions of the newspaper. The Gazette is published weekly and circulated in the counties of Goochland and Powhatan. The plaintiffs, private citizens of Powhatan County, claimed that readers of the news item in question would understand they had been charged with aggravated sexual battery. In fact, a child of the Harrises and a child of Mrs. Sweeney had been molested by one Harold F. Payne.

Question 23

What was the issue behind Gazette v. Harris?

Answer 23

How is defamation in the media defined in Virginia?

Question 24

What was the ruling of Gazette v. Harris?

Answer 24

Public official cannot recover for defamation relating to official conduct unless proof of actual malice. Actual malice may be proven through deliberate falsification or reckless publication. Standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Public figure may recover for defamation upon showing of highly unreasonable conduct constituting extreme departure from standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to. As long as states do not impose liability without fault they may define for themselves appropriate standard for publisher of defamatory falsehood injurious to private individual. Virginia’s standard is: (1) publication is false and (2) defendant lacked reasonable grounds to believe statement true; or (3) defendant acted negligently in failing to ascertain facts. Negligence standard is expressly limited to circumstances where defamatory statement makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. Trial Judge shall make this determination. If no substantial danger to reputation is apparent, then New York Times actual malice must be established. Negligence standard is applicable to media and nonmedia defendant alike. Accusation of criminal behavior is sufficient to put editor on notice of substantial danger to reputation.

Question 25

What was the background of Hustler v. Falwell?

Answer 25

A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a “parody” of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.

Question 26

What was the issue behind Hustler v. Falwell?

Answer 26

Does the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress

Question 27

What was the ruling of Hustler v. Falwell?

Answer 27

Yes. In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with “actual malice.” The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state’s interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Question 28

What was the background of Time, Inc. v. Hill?

Answer 28

In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays’ published a novel based on the Hill family’s ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine (“Life”) printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family’s experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life’s owner, Time Inc. (“Time”) certiorari.

Question 29

What was the issue behind Time, Inc. v. Hill?

Answer 29

Is a publication, containing misrepresentations about the subject of its coverage, protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantees?

Question 30

What was the ruling of Time, Inc. v. Hill?

Answer 30

Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court set aside the Appellate ruling against Time because the lower court failed to instruct the jury that Time’s liability was contingent upon a showing that it knowingly and recklessly published false statements about the Hill family. The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction.

Question 31

What was the background of Snyder v. Phelps?

Answer 31

The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fag troops” at Snyder’s funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment’s protections on religious expression. The church members’ speech is protected, “notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words.”

Question 32

What was the issue behind Snyder v. Phelps?

Answer 32

Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

Question 33

What was the ruling of Snyder v. Phelps?

Answer 33

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority’s conclusion in the case, “I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point.” Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.”