1. Brandon Robinson
3353-001_Constitutional Law-Limitations
October 13, 2014
Reaction Paper to Movie Absence of Malice
Introduction
The movie Absence of Malice is about a reporter who prints a story about a man named
Michael Gallagher, implicating that he is under investigation for the presumed murder of a union
official. Later on in the movie she prints another story about the district attorney accepting bribes
from Gallagher. The main legal issues that are involved in this movie and that I will discuss are
what are the requirements to be found guilty of written defamation or libel, and what rights do
reporters have when subpoenaed to testify in front of the grand jury. First I will discuss the two
stories written by the reporter and then will briefly discuss the rights of reporters who are
subpoenaed to testify.
Libel Law Requirements
When a person prints a story about someone and that story happens to be false, the person
who printed the story or the newspaper the person works for may be sued for libel. But because
of the first amendment and freedom of the press the reporter has protections against being sued
for libel. The person who is suing has to meet certain requirements in order to receive
compensation for the defamation. The first requirement is that the written material was made to
others, not just the person suing. The second requirement is that written material caused damage.
The third requirement is that the written material or statement is actually false. Lastly there is
another requirement but it depends on your status in society, if you are a public official or a

2. public figure the burden to win a libel lawsuit becomes higher. If you fall into one of these two
categories, to win the suit you also have to find that the person made the statement with actual
malice or had a reckless disregard for the truth. What actual malice means, according to New
York Times v. Sullivan, is that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false and
reckless disregard for the truth, according to Rickert v. State of Washington, the person does not
have to check every publication or fact before writing a statement, so as long as they did not
ignore the truthful information purposely and believed the statement to be true they are not liable
for the damages done. But if the person is not a public official or a public figure than the last
requirement does not apply
Legal Issues in the Movie
The first printed story the reporter released about Gallagher, if he wanted to bring suit
against her, would not meet the requirements to uphold a libel lawsuit against the reporter. Going
through the steps I will show why he would not be able to win. The reporter did make a
statement about Gallagher that many people could see and he was damaged by the statement, his
workers were basically made to quit or not work for him for a while because of the union’s threat
of pulling their union cards. But the reporter’s statements were true, because she read the federal
prosecutors’ files that stated Gallagher was indeed under investigation. So because the
statements were true Gallagher has no case and cannot win or receive compensation. If the
statements were, for sake of fully discussing the law, found to be false then Gallagher would
have a stronger case because he is a private individual, although that could possibly be argued.
But the reporter did try and contact him to get his side of the story before printing, so it would
still be hard to win because this would eliminate her being negligent. The next printed story that
the reporter wrote was about the district attorney accepting bribes from Gallagher to publicly

3. announce that Gallagher was no longer being investigated and clear his name. This statement
was read by a lot of people and it definitely hurt the district attorney’s reputation, but because he
is a public official we have to decide if the reporter acted with actual malice or reckless disregard
for the truth. Looking at the facts, I would say that she did not because once again she looked at
the files that were gathered by the federal prosecutor, which was reliable evidence that Gallagher
and the district attorney were under investigation. So there would be no malice in this situation
even though the district attorney was not accepting bribes from Gallagher. Another legal issue is
whether the reporter if subpoenaed would have to forfeit her source of information or face jail
time. According to Branzburg v. Hayes reporters do not have a special right and therefore she
would have to forfeit her source.
Purpose of the movie
I believe the purpose of this movie was to show the viewer what protections reporters
have and to give insight on the law. Also, this movie showed the detriment that bad reporting can
have on the people in the stories. I really liked this movie because it shines light on what a
reporter’s job is like and also how much their stories can affect people, plus it entertainingly
discusses our first amendment rights. I agree with the way the director portrayed the law and
how the reporter would talk with the attorney before printing. This movie shows just how much
freedom Americans have to speak and to speak about public officials. The more power someone
has in this country, like a public official, it becomes harder to chill speech or to get compensation
for someone hurting their reputation. If they are a public official or public figure then there
cannot be an absence of malice, because if there is no malice then there is no law suit, hence the
name of the movie. Word Count: 963