Chapter 4: Defamation Flashcards
Defamation
Speech that tends to lower a person’s reputation before others, causes that person to be shunned or exposes that person to ridicule
Libel v. Slander
Libel: printed defamation → easier to prove and punished more harshly (includes broadcast)
Slander: spoken defamation → harder to prove, punished more leniently
Libel per quod
the speech is libelous only in its specific context
Libel per se
The words themselves are libelous
1. accusing someone of a crime
2. asserting that someone has a contagious or offensive disease
3. attacking a person’s reputation in his occupation
4. charging someone with sexual immorality
4 Requirements to Prove Defamation
- Publication: the message is communicated to a 3rd party
- Identification: by name, by inference, or by group
- Defamation
- Fault
4 Defenses for Defamation Cases
- Truth
- Previously tarnished reputation
- Privileged Communication
- Constitutional Defense
Privileged Communication (2 types)
Absolute: complete immunity
ex: lawmakers on the floor of Congress, matters of safety, etc
Qualified: some protection, not immunity
ex: scientific or artistic critique
Actual damages
can be precisely calculated
General damages
reflect the jury’s subjective opinion of the seriousness of the crime
Punitive damages
awarded as a form of punishment for the defendant
Pring v. Penthouse
Facts: Penthouse Magazine published a story about a “fictional” Miss Wyoming that was almost identical to the real one. Pring sued for defamation and won 25 million in punitive damages.
Holding: A circuit court reversed the ruling stating that a reasonable person could differentiate between fact and fiction
Significance: Demonstrates the role of punitive damages
Beauharnais v Illinois
Facts: Beauharnais was convicted under Illinois group libel law for circulating flyers that advocated against allowing Blacks into a certain neighborhood
Holding: SCOTUS upheld the decision saying that if speech that harms an individual can be prosecuted then so can speech that harms a group
Significance: SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of group libel laws
New York Times v. Sullivan
Facts: Sullivan, the commissioner of public safety, sues the NYT for a civil rights ad that criticized police actions and had minor factual inaccuracies (truth was the standard of fault in Alabama)
Holding: SCOTUS overturns the ruling and Brennan asserts that since Sullivan was a public official, he must prove actual malice
Significance: created the “actual malice” test for public officials
Actual Malice: Knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth
Curtis Publishing v. Butts
Facts: Butts, a football coach sued Curtis for publishing an article that suggested he fixed a game
Holding: SCOTUS remand the case because Butts was a public figure and needed to prove actual malice
Significance: applies actual malice to public figures
Associated Press v. Walker
Facts: Walker, a military leader, sues AP for accusing him of inciting insurrection
Holding: SCOTUS remands the case because Walker was a public figure and needed to prove actual malice
Significance: applies actual malice to public figures
Rosenblatt v. Baer
Facts: Baer, supervisor of a public recreation area, sued Rosenblatt for an article he published that accused Baer of financial impropriety.
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Rosenblatt saying that Baer is a public official
Significance: broadens the definition of a public official to include both large and small government possitions
Monitor Patriot v. Roy
Facts: Roy sued Monitor Patriot for insulting him while he was running for Senate. The lower court sided with Roy because the paper wrote on a private matter
Holding: SCOTUS reversed the decision saying that private matters are important when electing officials and thus are not exempt from the actual malice test
Significance: applied actual malice to public figures’ private lives
St. Amant v. Thompson
Facts: St. Amant and Thompson were political candidates. St. Amant claimed Thompson was corrupt during a speech. Thompson sued.
Holding: SCOTUS ruled in favor of St. Amant because he believed what he was saying was true and did not have the time/ability to check his facts
Significance: if the defendant thought they were telling the truth and cannot verify the truth then it doesn’t qualify as actual malice
Time v. Pape
Facts: Pape, police chief, sues Time for publishing a story on police brutality using an account from a government report
Holding: SCOTUS sided with Time because it did not act with reckless disregard for the truth, the government report was ambiguous
Significance: A publisher cannot be faulted for believing bad information, (strengthens the actual malice test)
Ocala Star-Banner v. Damron
Facts: Damron sues Ocala Star-Banner for publishing a story that accidentally assigned his brother’s criminal record to him
Holding: SCOTUS sides with the publisher because it was an “honest mistake” not actual malice
Significance: a mistake does not constitute reckless disregard (strengthens the actual malice test)
Gertz v. Welch
Facts: Gertz was the lawyer for a family whose son was killed by the police. Welch’s publishing company released an article denouncing Gertz. Gertz sues.
Holding: SCOTUS sides with Gertz because he is not a public figure
Significance: (1) the court established the difference between all-purpose and limited public figures (2) The minimum standard of fault for a private person is negligence (3) if a state uses negligence as the standard of fault, the plaintiff can only collect actual damages
Philadelphia Newspaper v. Hepps
Facts: The newspaper wrote an article accusing Thrifty stores of organized crime. The primary stockholder, Hepps, sued and won because PA placed the burden of proof on the defendant
Holding: SCOTUS sided with the newspaper and established that the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff
Significance: Shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff in defamation cases
Milkovich v Lorain Journal
Facts: The Lorain Journal claimed that Milkovich, a wrestling coach, lied during a hearing about inciting a crowd
Holding: SCOTUS overturned the ruling stating that calling someone a liar was not a protected “opinion”
Significance: established that not all opinions are protected from defamation suits and gave vague guidelines for assessing opinions
Guidelines:
1. Loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language
2. General tenor of the speech
3. Can it be proven as true or false?
Masson v New Yorker
Facts: New Yorker published an unflattering story about Masson, a psychoanalyst, based on tape recordings. Masson sues for defamation because some of the quotes were fabricated
Holding: SCOTUS sides with the New Yorker
Significance: quotes can be fabricated so long as they do not change the expressed meaning
