This document summarizes key Supreme Court rulings related to libel law from Times v. Sullivan in 1964 to the 1990s. It discusses how the "actual malice" standard was extended to public figures and limited public figures. It also outlines how the standard changed for private figures and how the definition of "reckless disregard" was defined. It concludes by summarizing rulings related to opinion vs facts and two libel defenses.

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
• 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