CH 5 LIBEL PROOF OF FAULT Key 1 Terms 2 Laws and Acts 3 Cases In 1964 for the first time the US Supreme Court ruled that a libel plaintiff was required to show that a defendant had been at fault when the defamatory material was published Until that time civil libel law had been governed by what is known as the doctrine of strict liability libel defendant was responsible for harming a plaintiff regardless of how cautious and careful he or she had been in preparing and publishing or broadcasting the story NEW YORK TIMES V SULLIVAN Struggle for civil rights and increasing media on the peaceful protests being met with illegal tactics violence led to the NYT v Sullivan case Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had to prove that the paper had knowledge of falsity or that the ad publishers had been extraordinarily careless reckless disregard for truth These two elements were labeled actual malice by Justice Brennan The language in the court s opinion extended the ruling in this case to all people whom the court called public officials RATIONALE FOR THE RULING Stripped of its civil libel cover this case was clearly one of seditious libel o An official was criticized for his work in the public office Newspaper was punished for the criticism basically Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 but rulings by the Supreme court had highly limited the usage of these laws The nation has a profound and long standing commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open o Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken away from the field of free debate Freedom of expression needs breathing space to survive aka don t want a chilling effect bc of fear of small mistakes rep harm When public officials like Sullivan take a govt post they must expect that their work will be closely scrutinized and even criticized by the people they serve o Officers of govt have ample means to rebut criticism Sullivan could have gone to the press to publish his truth not just punish others for speaking their mind which is an important part of democracy The actual malice rule of this case was already a part of the law in a handful of states prior to NYT v Sullivan but afterwards it had to be followed by all The rule was then extended to public figures people outside of public govt who led public debates In 1974 the high court added the final element to the libel fault rule when it declared that even private persons non public officials public figures must prove that the mass media was at fault States had some leeway in what kind of fault the person had to prove Under 1A the private person plaintiff at least must prove that the mass media defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in preparing and transmitting the story negligence Summary 1 Private persons who sue the media for defamation must at least prove 2 that the material was published through negligence Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care Individuals who have been deemed to be public persons for purposes of a libel suit against a mass medium have to prove that the defendant exhibited actual malice when the material was published Actual malice is defined in the law as publishing with the knowledge that the libelous assertion is false or with reckless disregard for whether it is true or false PUBLIC PERSONS VERSUS PRIVATE PERSONS Public officials and public figures must prove a higher level of fault than private individuals WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL Two questions o Who is this plaintiff what kind of govt job does he have What is the o What was the allegedly libelous story about What is the nature of the job description story JOB DESCRIPTION 1 Any person who is elected to public office to even the lowliest public office 2 qualifies as a public official Individuals who are appointed to or hired for govt jobs may qualify as public person in a libel action It depends on the nature of the job 3 But not everyone who works for the government will be regarded as a public official Bright line rule When courts consistently rule the same way on a legal question lawyers often say a bright line rule has been established No bright line rule for libel classifications Supreme court did say o It is clear that the public official designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of govt employees who have or appear to have to the public a substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of government affairs Basically when most people have a vested interest in how a certain person does his job they can probably be classified as a public official Case precedents o A timber management and contracting officer in CA was deemed a P O o An assistant superintendent of school in NY was deemed a P O o Chief of criminal section of city law in OH P O o Junior state social worker P O o WA state administrator of a motor pool for a small county P O bc he could spend county funds w o approval o Secretary and chief examiner of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission in Seattle P O o City manager of small Texas town P O The context is important a planner with a state geological survey office might not be a P O but if given a certain responsibility and decision making power that affects a greater number of people he could become a P O in that circumstance It is impossible to list jobs that are P O but some criteria include o The level of responsibility the individual has how important is the job o The kind of responsibility the person has police officers teachers and social workers are lower level but have great impact on many ppl o Does the individual have the authority to spend public money independently without supervision THE NATURE OF THE STORY If the statement concerns o The manner in which the plaintiff conducts himself of herself in office in other words the way he does the job o The plaintiff s general fitness to hold that job Then plaintiff carries the burden of proving actual malice The plaintiff s general fitness to hold office is much broader and can even relate to a public officials private or personal habits E g a firefighters personal finances wouldn t be a public issue but perhaps the city treasurer s finance issues would be For the president almost any person issue is considered a measure of fitness but the lower you go on the totem pole the most likely courts are to rule that it is a private issue It is incumbent on any journalist preparing a
View Full Document
Unlocking...