• Like
Times v. Sullivan: The sequels
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Times v. Sullivan: The sequels

  • 2,787 views
Published

A landmark libel decision leads to years of defining its reach.

A landmark libel decision leads to years of defining its reach.

Published in Education , News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,787
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Times v. Sullivan: The sequelsA landmark libel decision leads to years of defining its reach
  • 2. Actual malice and public 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 and public figures• Times v. Sullivan standard extended to public figures in two 1967 cases• All-purpose public figures are A-list celebrities
  • 4. Actual malice and public 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 and negligence• Rosenbloomv. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies
  • 6. Private figures and negligence• Rosenbloomv. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies• The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertzv. Robert Welch (1974)
  • 7. Private figures and negligence• Rosenbloomv. Metromedia Inc. (1971) extended the actual malice standard to private figures in public controversies• The Supreme Court stepped back in Gertzv. 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 and state 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 “reckless disregard”?• Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton
  • 11. What is “reckless disregard”?• Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton• Journal News avoided sources that would cast doubt on its story
  • 12. What is “reckless disregard”?• Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton• 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 “reckless disregard”?• Supreme Court set a high standard in 1989 in Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton• 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 Milkovichv. 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