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

1. Times v. Sullivan:
The sequels
A 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
• Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971)
extended the actual malice standard to
private figures in public controversies

6. Private figures and negligence
• 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 and negligence
• 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 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
• The 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
• 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 “reckless disregard”?
• 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