http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/libel-defamation/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Tue, 03 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Liberty Lobby, Inc. (Liberty), a nonprofit "citizen's lobby" corporation, filed a libel action against a magazine published by Jack Anderson et al. Liberty claimed that one of Anderson's articles contained false and derogatory statements about its operations. In its defense, Anderson claimed that as a pubic entity Liberty must show with "convincing clarity" that Anderson acted with actual malice - something they could not do since the article's author stated in an affidavit that he thoroughly researched and cross-checked all his information. Liberty claimed that Anderson did act with actual malice since its author depended on patently unreliable sources. Following a district court's summary judgment ruling favoring Anderson, an appellate court reversed as it held that the lower court erroneously applied actual malice standards of proof at the summary judgement phase. Anderson appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.</p> <p>Can a court, in the context of a summary judgment request, award summary judgment in a libel action if the moving party had no evidence that a reasonable jury might disbelieve its opponent's claim?</p> 84-1602_19851203-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1602/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 21 Mar 1984 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 83-18_19840321-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_18/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 03 Oct 1984 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 83-18_19841003-reargument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_18/reargument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 14 Nov 1973 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Gertz was an attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family's son. In a magazine called American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a "Leninist" and a "Communist-fronter" because he chose to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost his libel suit because a lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).</p> <p>Does the First Amendment allow a newspaper or broadcaster to assert defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure?</p> 72-617_19731114-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_617/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 20 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 88-10_19890320-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_10/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 31 Oct 1978 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Anthony Herbert was a retired Army officer who served in Vietnam. While in Vietnam, he accused superior officers of covering up atrocities that American troops had committed. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) produced and broadcast a documentary of the petitioner's story. Herbert sued for libel arguing that the program falsely and maliciously portrayed his character, causing him financial loss. In order to prove libel under the "actual malice" standard, Herbert's attorneys deposed Lando as well as the producer and the editor of the documentary, attempting to deduce the editorial decisions that were made during the production of the program.</p> <p>In an accusation of libel, do the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect members of the press from inquiries into their thoughts, opinions, and conclusions that go into the editorial process?</p> 77-1105_19781031-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1105/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 02 Dec 1987 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.</p> <p>Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?</p> 86-1278_19871202-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 17 Apr 1979 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the "Golden Fleece Award of the Month." The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the "nonsense" of Hutchinson's research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire's statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.</p> <p>Were Proxmire's activities and statements against Hutchinson's research protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution?</p> 78-680_19790417-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_680/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 08 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Kathy Keeton (Keeton) sued Hustler Magazine, Inc. (Hustler) and several other defendants for libel in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Keeton alleged that the district court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship since she was a resident of New York and Hustler was an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California. Hustler sold 10 to 15 thousand copies of its magazine in New Hampshire each month but Keeton's only connection to New Hampshire was the circulation there of copies of a magazine that she assisted in producing. She chose to sue in New Hampshire because it was the only state in which the statute of limitation for libel six years, the longest in the United States had not run. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the application of New Hampshire's long-arm statute in order to acquire personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that Keeton's contacts with New Hampshire were too attenuated for an assertion of personal jurisdiction over Hustler. The Court of Appeals also found the application of the "single publication rule," which would require the court to award Keeton damages caused in all states should she prevail, unfair since most of Keeton's alleged injuries occurred outside of New Hampshire.</p> <p>Was Hustler's circulation of magazines within the forum state of New Hampshire alone sufficient, without regard to the depth of plaintiff's contacts or the amount of plaintiff's damages caused in New Hampshire, to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based upon the contents of the magazine?</p> 82-485_19831108-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_485/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 14 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500 <p>After Jeffrey Masson was fired from his position at the Sigmund Freud Archives, Janet Malcolm interviewed him for an article in the New Yorker magazine. Malcolm_s article included many long direct quotations from Masson. The article presented Masson as extremely arrogant and condescending; at one point, he was quoted as calling himself "the greatest analyst who ever lived." However, Malcolm fabricated many of the more distasteful quotations. Masson sued for libel. The District Court dismissed the case on First Amendment free speech grounds because Masson was a public figure.</p> <p>Does the First Amendment give the New Yorker a right to publish fabricated quotations attributed to a public figure?</p> 89-1799_19910114-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1799/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 20 Mar 1985 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 84-476_19850320-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_84_476/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 24 Apr 1990 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 89-645_19900424-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_645/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Jan 1964 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.</p> <p>Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?</p> 39_19640106-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Mon, 06 Jan 1964 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.</p> <p>Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?</p> 40_19640106-lq-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/argument_40/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 03 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In a series of articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer accused Hepps of links to organized crime and of capitalizing on that connection to influence the state legislature. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court favored Hepps and held that the newspaper was obligated to prove its accusations true.</p> <p>Did the state supreme court's decision violate the First Amendment?</p> 84-1491_19851203-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1491/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 14 Oct 1975 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 74-944_19751014-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_944/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.</p> <p>Did a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?</p> 03-1488_20050322-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1488/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist