Times v. Sullivan: The Sequels

Times v. Sullivan: The Sequels

• 1.
  Times v. Sullivan: Thesequels A landmark libel decision leads to years of defining its reach
• 2.
  Actual malice andpublic figures • Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases – Associated Press v. Walker – Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
• 3.
  Actual malice andpublic figures • Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases • All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities
• 4.
  Actual malice andpublic figures • Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases • All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities • Limited-purpose public figures have thrust themselves into the spotlight on a particular issue
• 5.
  Private figures andnegligence • Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies
• 6.
  Private figures andnegligence • Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies • The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974)
• 7.
  Private figures andnegligence • Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies • The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) • Private figures need not show actual malice, but they must at least show negligence — the end of no-fault libel
• 8.
  Actual malice andstate of mind • In Herbert v. Lando, the Supreme Court ruled that a libel plaintiff attempting to show actual malice may inquire into a news organization’s “metal process”
• 9.
  Burden of proof •In Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps (1986), the Court ruled that the plaintiff must prove the offending report is false
• 10.
  What is “recklessdisregard”? • Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton
• 11.
  What is “recklessdisregard”? • Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton • The Journal News avoided sources that would cast doubt on its story
• 12.
  What is “recklessdisregard”? • Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton • The Journal News avoided sources that would cast doubt on its story • Journalists must have “entertained serious doubt” as to truth of story
• 13.
  What is “recklessdisregard”? • Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton • The Journal News avoided sources that would cast doubt on its story • Journalists must have “entertained serious doubt” as to truth of story • Story was technically accurate
• 14.
  Opinion versus facts •In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), the Court ruled that factual assertions could be the subject of a libel suit even if they were labeled “opinion”
• 15.
  Opinion versus facts •In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), the Court ruled that factual assertions could be the subject of a libel suit even if they were labeled “opinion” • Pure opinion, in the form of the “fair comment” privilege, remains in effect
• 16.
  Two libel defenses •“Fair report” or “public record” defense – Journalist enjoys qualified privilege if she accurately and fairly reports official proceedings
• 17.
  Two libel defenses •“Fair report” or “public record” defense – Journalist enjoys qualified privilege if she accurately and fairly reports official proceedings – Privilege ends on the steps of the courthouse or City Hall
• 18.
  Two libel defenses •“Fair report” or “public record” defense • “Wire service” defense – News organization can’t be held liable for running a libelous story from a reputable wire service
• 19.
  Two libel defenses •“Fair report” or “public record” defense • “Wire service” defense – News organization can’t be held liable for running a libelous story from a reputable wire service – Privilege ends if it can be shown that the news organization harbored doubts