Libel continues

Exam One was passed back.

!! ** Brief a case: Times v. Sullivan **




CHAPTER 4 (cont'd)

(Libel): Fault

Two questions
Who is the plaintiff ? - the one allegedly injured
How was the story/material processed? Steps taken to assure truth

1964 - NY Times v. Sullivan - Libel brought into the Federal level.
[libel is a state law...but brought to Supreme Court]
it was about an ad about MLK, the officer was identified as the AL police commissioner.
Supreme court reversed the decision so it was now against Sullivan.

Seditious libel [?]
Sullivan outlined restrictions for libel actions by public officials for criticism in the execution of their public responsibilities.

By the end of the 1960s, actual malice extended to all public officials and public figures.

"Public officials need to be able to take some heat" "Man up"

FAULT

Public Official -
Those with public responsibilities:
For fault must prove actual malice

Public Figures -
Those who:
-invite attention and comment
-have access to effective communication

willful and disregard for the truth - actual malice



1974 Gertz v Welch, Inc. Court determined that even private figures must prove fault in a libel action.

-all-purpose public figure. well known and easily recognized by the public (Jay Leno, Oprah)

-limited public figure. Someone injected into public issue
"puts themselves into the limelight"


So now - two levels of fault:
actual malice - knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth
negligence - failure to exercise reasonable care.

FAULT

Private Person-
Someone who does not meet any of the above standards. They only have to prove negligence.

Plaintiff has to prove as much actual malice as they can:

Actual Malice: (willful disregard to the truth)
-state of mind of the writers/editors
-was it written in good faith
-was there deadline pressure (hot news?)
-reliability of sources (normally reliable source)
-standard journalistic practices?
-believability (reasonable person rule) was story probable
-motivation behind story

Supreme court requires "clear and convincing" evidence.
(Opinion is not enough if experts agree with your side.)

Reckless Disregard for the truth:
- having a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity
- plaintiff must show that the defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication

Negligence: (not being careful)
-no reasonable precautions
-failure to contact all parties
-failure to verify information
-discrepancy between reporter and source

Gross negligence:
-something between no precautions and ill will


REMEMBER - Libel laws are state laws

Times v Sullivan
Staff had no reason to doubt the claims..it was believable and reliable source..so Supreme said he has to prove actual malice that they were actually out to get him before he could win.