Cases by Issue - Libel

Tory v. Cochran

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-1488

Petitioner

Ulysses Tory, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

544 U.S. 734 (2005)

Granted

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Argued

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Decided

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Advocates

Erwin Chemerinsky (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Jonathan B. Cole (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Tory, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that Cochran's death diminished the grounds for the judge's order and that the order therefore amounted to an overly broad prior restraint on speech. Tory could no longer try to force Cochran to pay him in exchange for desisting, the Court reasoned, ending the order's underlying justification.

Bartnicki v. Vopper

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:32 +0000

Location

WILK Radio

305 Route 315 Hwy Pittston PA 18640

Pittston, PA 18640

United States

41° 18' 22.5864" N, 75° 45' 49.3632" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

99-1687

Petitioner

Bartnicki

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Vopper

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 99-1728

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 514 (2001)

Argued

Tuesday, December 5, 2000

Decided

Monday, May 21, 2001

Advocates

Jeremiah A. Collins (Argued the cause for the private petitioners)

Thomas C. Goldstein (Argued the cause for the respondent Yocum)

Lee Levine (Argued the cause for the respondents Vopper, et al)

Seth P. Waxman (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner United States)

Facts of the Case

An unidentified person intercepted and recorded a phone call between the chief union negotiator and the union president (the petitioners) during collective- bargaining negotiations involving a teachers' union and the local school board. After a teacher-favorable proposal was accepted, a radio commentator played a tape of the intercepted conversation. Petitioners filed suit under both federal and state wiretapping laws, alleging that an unknown person using an electronic device had surreptitiously intercepted their telephone conversation. Rejecting a First Amendment protection defense, the District Court concluded, in part, that the statutes were content-neutral laws of general applicability containing "no indicia of prior restraint or the chilling of free speech." Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found the statutes invalid because they deterred significantly more speech than necessary to protect the private interests at stake.

Question

Does the First Amendment provide protection to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Vopper, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. "In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance," wrote Justice Stevens. "[A] stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern." Noting that the negotiations were a matter of public interest, Justice Stevens wrote that the "debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis' classic opinion in Whitney v. California, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection."

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:23 +0000

Location

New Yorker Magazine

4 Times Sq New York NY 10036

New York, NY 10036

United States

40° 45' 23.1552" N, 73° 59' 13.866" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1799

Petitioner

Masson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991)

Opinion

501 U.S. 496 (1991)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1991

Decided

Thursday, June 20, 1991

Advocates

Charles Morgan, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Does the First Amendment give the New Yorker a right to publish fabricated quotations attributed to a public figure?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Masson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. In a 9-0 vote, the Court ruled that the First Amendments free expression clause could not protect the distortions in Malcolms article. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion also explained when a direct quotation can be considered false, and therefore potentially libelous. The First Amendment limits libel suits by public figures. A report about a public figure cannot be considered "false" unless it is a gross distortion of the truth. Justice Kennedy's opinion explained that a direct quotation will qualify as such a distortion if the quoted words differ in their factual meaning from anything the public figure really said. Malcolm_s fabrication qualified as a "gross distortion," and the Court granted Masson standing to sue.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-645

Petitioner

Milkovich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lorain Journal

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

497 U.S. 1 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Decided

Thursday, June 21, 1990

Advocates

Brent Lawson English (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Richard D. Panza (on behalf of the Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Milkovich, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

The Florida Star v. B. J. F.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-329

Appellee

B. J. F.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

The Florida Star

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 524 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, March 21, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

Joel D. Eaton (on behalf of Respondent)

George K. Rahdert (on behalf of the Appellant,)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for The Florida Star, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-10

Petitioner

Harte-Hanks Communications

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Connaughton

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 657 (1989)

Argued

Monday, March 20, 1989

Decided

Thursday, June 22, 1989

Advocates

John A. Lloyd, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Lee Levine (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Connaughton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:20 +0000

Location

Hustler Magazine Headquarters

8484 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills CA 90211

Beverly Hills, CA 90211

United States

34° 3' 52.236" N, 118° 22' 32.2644" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1278

Petitioner

Hustler Magazine

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Falwell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Argued

Wednesday, December 2, 1987

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1988

Advocates

Alan L. Isaacman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Norman Roy Grutman (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hustler Magazine, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a unanimous opinion the Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice." The Court added that the interest of protecting free speech, under the First Amendment, surpassed the state's interest in protecting public figures from patently offensive speech, so long as such speech could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject.

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:18 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1491

Appellee

Hepps

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

475 U.S. 767 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1986

Advocates

David H. Marion (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Ronald H. Surkin (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Did the state supreme court's decision violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. Relying on its reasoning in Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974), the Court reversed the state court's decision. The Gertz standard for evaluating potentially libelous speech required that "the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages."

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-1602

Petitioner

Anderson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Argued

Tuesday, December 3, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 25, 1986

Advocates

David J. Branson (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Mark Lane (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Anderson, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

No. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the purpose of summary judgments is to determine if the evidence is so one-sided that a party should prevail as a matter of law. Summary judgments will not lie if there is a sufficient likelihood that a reasonable jury would return a verdict favorable to the nonmoving party. In libel cases involving public entities, trial courts faced with summary judgment motions must decide whether a reasonable jury could conclude with convincing clarity that actual malice existed. The mere assertion by a plaintiff that a defendant's summary judgment motion is deficient because a reasonable jury might disbelieve the defendant's denial of actual malice is insufficient to warrant a grant of summary judgment without any offer of evidentiary proof to that effect. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling.

Mcdonald v. Smith

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-476

Petitioner

Mcdonald

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 479 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 20, 1985

Decided

Wednesday, June 19, 1985

Advocates

Bruce J. Ennis, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

William A. Eagles (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Petition Clause

None

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:17 +0000

Location

The D&B Corporation

103 JFK Parkway Short Hills NJ 07078

Short Hills, NJ 07078

United States

40° 44' 22.02" N, 74° 19' 45.912" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-18

Petitioner

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Greenmoss Builders

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 749 (1985)

Argued

Wednesday, March 21, 1984

Reargued:

Wednesday, October 3, 1984

Decided

Wednesday, June 26, 1985

Advocates

Gordon Lee Garrett (on behalf of Petitioner)

Thomas F. Heilmann (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Dun and Bradstreet, a credit reporting agency, mistakenly reported to some of its subscribers that the construction contractor Greenmoss Builders had voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. The president of Greenmoss quickly learned about the erroneous report, requested Bradstreet to correct its error, and asked for the list of subscribers who received the report. Bradstreet refused to release the names on the list, but issued a correction to its five subscribers who received the original report. The correction stated that actually a former employee of Greenmoss had filed for bankruptcy and that Greenmoss Builders "continued in business as usual." Greenmoss was dissatisfied with the correction and again asked for the list. When Bradstreet refused a second time, Greenmoss filed suit against it for defamation in a Vermont state court. The court discovered that a 17-year-old high student interning for Bradstreet had caused the error and the jury awarded $350,000 to Greenmoss in compensatory and punitive damages. Bradstreet claimed that contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Gertz v. Robert Welch, the trial judge told the jury that it could award punitive damages even if Bradford did not make mistakes intentionally or out of recklessness. The court granted Bradstreet's motion for retrial, but the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Gertz only applied to cases involving defamation by the media.

Question

If a trial judge does not instruct the jury to only award punitive damages caused by intentional slander or reckless conduct, can a jury still award punitive damages to a plaintiff defamed by private speech?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Greenmoss Builders, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. Justice Lewis Powell authored the opinion for a 5-4 court. Although the trial court correctly perceived that the trial judge's instructions did not satisfy the requirements of Gertz, the Court held that Gertzdid not apply since the present case did not involve public speech. Instead the Court looked to apply the logic of Gertz to situations concerning private speech. The Court reasoned that laws regulating defamation suits aimed to "balance the State's interest in compensating private individuals for injury to their reputation against the First Amendment interest in protecting this type [Bradstreet's] of expression." Because the First Amendment offers less protection to private speech than to public speech, and especially less to speech "being solely motived by a desire for profit," damages caused by it can result in heavier penalties and broader conditions for convictions. Therefore states can allow the recovery of punitive damages in defamation cases involving private speech even when the perpetrator does not demonstrate "actual malice."

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-485

Petitioner

Keeton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hustler Magazine, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 770 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

Stephen M. Shapiro (By invitation of the Court, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below)

Norman Roy Grutman (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Keeton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Yes. Hustler's regular circulation of magazines in New Hampshire is sufficient to support an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine. In analyzing whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to permit personal jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment, a court should focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Hustler has continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market and therefore it must reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there. Keeton did not need to have minimum contacts with the forum state in order for that state to have asserted personal jurisdiction over Hustler. New Hampshire had a sufficient interest in adjudicating the dispute. Moreover, even though most of the harm done to Keeton occurred outside New Hampshire, the same would be true in most libel cases brought anywhere other than plaintiff's state of domicile.

Calder v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-1401

Petitioner

Calder

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 783 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, November 8, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of the Appellant)

Paul S. Ablon (on behalf of the Appellee)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-5414

Petitioner

Wolston

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reader's Digest Assn., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 157 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Wolston, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Hutchinson v. Proxmire

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:13 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-680

Petitioner

Hutchinson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Proxmire

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

443 U.S. 111 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, April 17, 1979

Decided

Tuesday, June 26, 1979

Advocates

Michael E. Cavanaugh (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Alan Raywid (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Hutchinson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1: Speech or Debate Clause

No. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that Proxmire's statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmire's statements were not made with "actual malice" and thus, were not libelous. Chief Justice Burger, relying on the Court's finding in Doe v. McMillan (1973), concluded that while speeches in Congress and discussions with staff were protected by Section 6, statements in newsletters and press releases were not because they were not "essential to the deliberations of the Senate" nor were they part of the legislature's "deliberative process."

Herbert v. Lando

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-1105

Petitioner

Herbert

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lando

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

441 U.S. 153 (1979)

Argued

Tuesday, October 31, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, April 18, 1979

Advocates

Jonathan W. Lubell (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Floyd Abrams (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Herbert, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the privilege not to answer editorial inquiries is not absolute. Justice White argued that shielding editorial decision-making from inquiry would "substantially enhance the burden of proving actual malice," a burden which was already substantial in the Court's view. White was confident that investigations into this process for falsehood or libelous reporting would not lead to self-censorship of stories that are documented and true; "only reckless error will be discouraged," which would not threaten the constitutionally protected freedom of the press.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:13 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-577

Petitioner

Zacchini

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 562 (1977)

Argued

Monday, April 25, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 28, 1977

Advocates

Ezra K. Bryan (Argued the cause for the respondent)

John G. Lancione (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Hugo Zacchini performed a "human cannonball" act, in which he was shot from a cannon into a net 200 feet away. A free-lance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. recorded the performance in its entirety without consent and it aired on the nightly news. Subsequently, Zacchini sued Scripps-Howard, alleging the unlawful appropriation of his professional property. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard. While recognizing that Zacchini had a cause of action for the infringement of his state-law right to publicity, the court found that Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged to include in its newscasts matters of public interest that would otherwise be protected by the right of publicity, absent an intent to injure or to appropriate for some nonprivileged purpose.

Question

Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for its alleged infringement of an entertainer's state-law right of publicity?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Zacchini, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Byron R. White, the Court held that Scripps-Howard's constitutionally privileged free speech did not extend to broadcasting Zacchini's entire performance without his permission. Noting that Zacchini's interest in the case was similar to a patent or copyright, in which he was seeking to obtain the benefit of his work, the Court emphasized that the broadcast of an entire act was categorically different from reporting on an event in so far as it posed a substantial threat to the economic value of the performance. "Wherever the line in particular situations is to be drawn between media reports that are protected and those that are not, we are quite sure that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent," wrote Justice White. Justice Louis F. Powell, Jr., joined by Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, dissented, arguing that the recording was genuinely treated as news and as such Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged. Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented.

Nixon v. Administrator Of General Services

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1605

Appellee

Administrator Of General Services

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Nixon

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

433 U.S. 425 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1977

Decided

Tuesday, June 28, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Administrator Of General Services, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 44 U.S.C. 2107

None

Time, Inc. v. Firestone

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-944

Petitioner

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Firestone

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

424 U.S. 448 (1976)

Argued

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

Decided

Tuesday, March 2, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Time, Inc., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Split Vote

None

Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-5520

Petitioner

Cantrell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Forest City Publishing Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 245 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 13, 1974

Decided

Wednesday, December 18, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cantrell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Cox Broadcasting Corporation v. Cohn

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:08 +0000

Location

Cox Broadcasting Corp

"1601 West Peachtree Street**** N.E." Atlanta GA 30309

Atlanta, GA 30309

United States

33° 47' 38.6952" N, 84° 23' 15.9" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-938

Appellee

Cohn

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Cox Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

420 U.S. 469 (1975)

Argued

Monday, November 11, 1974

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1975

Advocates

Kirk M. McAlpin (Argued the cause for the appellants)

Stephen A. Land (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

Martin Cohn was the father of a seventeen-year old girl who was raped and killed in Georgia. After obtaining information from the public record, a television station broadcast the name of Cohn's daughter in connection with the incident. This violated a Georgia privacy statute which prevented members of the media from publicizing the names or identities of rape victims.

Question

Did the Georgia law violate the freedom of the press as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Cox Broadcasting Corporation, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that the Georgia statute violated the Constitution. Justice White recognized the primacy of issues of privacy and press freedom, but he also identified compelling reasons why the press should not be restricted in this case. First, the news media is an important resource for citizens which allows them to scrutinize government proceedings. The commissions and adjudication of crimes are issues relevant to the public interest. Second, in the development of the privacy right, the Court has held that the interests of privacy "fade" in cases where controversial "information already appears on the public record." Restricting the media as the Georgia law did was a dangerous encroachment on press freedom, argued White, as it "would invite timidity and self-censorship."

Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:07 +0000

Location

Robert Welch Inc. Belmont, MA

United States

42° 23' 45.348" N, 71° 10' 43.194" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-617

Petitioner

Gertz

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Robert Welch Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 323 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Advocates

Wayne B. Giampietro (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Clyde J. Watts (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

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).

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Gertz, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court reversed the lower court decision and held that Gertz's rights had been violated. Justice Powell argued that the application of the New York Times v. Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate because Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. In the context of the opinion, Powell advanced many lines of reasoning to establish that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. However, continued Powell, the actual malice standard did not lose all significance in cases involving ordinary citizens as he advised states to use it in assessing claims for punitive damages by citizens suing for libel.

Letter Carriers v. Austin

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1180

Appellee

Austin

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Letter Carriers

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

418 U.S. 264 (1974)

Argued

Wednesday, November 14, 1973

Decided

Tuesday, June 25, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Letter Carriers, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Monitor Patriot Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roy

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 265 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Monitor Patriot Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

118

Petitioner

Ocala Star-Banner Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Damron

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 295 (1971)

Argued

Thursday, December 17, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Ocala Star-Banner Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Time, Inc. v. Pape

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:53 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

109

Petitioner

Time, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pape

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 279 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, December 16, 1970

Decided

Wednesday, February 24, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Time, Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rosenbloom

Respondent

Metromedia

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 29 (1971)

Argued

December 7-8, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Metromedia, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

413

Petitioner

Greenbelt Pub. Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bresler

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 6 (1970)

Argued

February 24-25, 1970

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Greenbelt Pub. Assn., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

St. Amant v. Thompson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

517

Petitioner

St. Amant

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 727 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, April 4, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 29, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for St. Amant, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Pickering v. Board Of Education

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

510

Appellee

Board Of Education

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Pickering

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, March 27, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Pickering, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Watts v. Seward School Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

325

Petitioner

Watts

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Seward School Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

391 U.S. 592 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1968

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Watts, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Split Vote

None

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:01 +0000

Location

Legion Field

400 Graymont Ave Birmingham AL 35204

Birmingham, AL 35204

United States

33° 30' 41.04" N, 86° 50' 34.08" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Curtis Publishing Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wallace Butts

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 150, Associated Press v. Walker

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

388 U.S. 130 (1967)

Argued

Thursday, February 23, 1967

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1967

Advocates

Herbert Wechsler (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 37)

Allen E. Lockerman (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 37)

William H. Schroder (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 37)

William P. Rogers (argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 150)

Clyde J. Watts (argued the cause for the respondent in No. 150)

Facts of the Case

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) the Court held that public officials in libel cases must show that a statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." These two cases concern libel as it pertains to public figures who are not public officials. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts concerns an article published in the March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Wallace Butts conspired with University of Alabama coach Paul "Bear" Bryant to fix a 1962 football game in Alabama's favor. The article's source was George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman who had allegedly overheard a telephone conversation between the coaches. Butts brought and won a libel suit against Curtis Publishing, owner of the periodical. Soon after the Court's ruling in New York Times, Curtis moved for a new trial. The trial judge rejected the argument because Butts was not a public official. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's decision on the basis that Curtis had waived any constitutional challenges by not raising such questions at trial. Associated Press v. Walker concerns dispatch reports of rioting that occurred on the campus of the University of Mississippi on September 30, 1962. The dispatches, authored by a correspondent on the scene, reported that Edwin A. Walker, a private citizen and political activist, had personally led a violent crowd attempting to prevent federal marshals from enforcing the court- ordered enrollment of an African-American. Walker denied the report, and filed a libel suit in the state courts of Texas. A jury found in Walker's favor, but the judge in the case refused to award punitive damages, finding that there was no malicious intent. The judge also specifically noted that New York Times was inapplicable. On appeal, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals agreed. The Supreme Court of Texas declined to hear the case.

Question

In light of the Court's ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, were the allegations made against Butts and Walker libelous?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Butts, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice John M. Harlan, the Court noted significant differences between the circumstances of these cases and those of New York Times. In particular, criticism of Butts or Walker, unlike a government official, could not be conflated with criticism of public policy. Thus, the Court reasoned that public figures who are not public officials may recover damages for libel stemming from false reports based on "highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers." The Court concluded that Curtis' investigation of its allegations against Butts failed to meet this standard. The company printed a questionably reliable source's allegations without any attempt to verify his claims, and the story in question was not a pressing event or immediately newsworthy. The Court thus affirmed the lower courts' denial of a retrial. The situation in Butts contrasted with Walker, where the AP relied on a correspondent on the scene of an event that was immediately newsworthy. The Court thus denied Walker's claims to damages.

Ashton v. Kentucky

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

619

Petitioner

Ashton

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 195 (1966)

Argued

Thursday, April 28, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 16, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Ashton, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Time Inc. v. Hill

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:00 +0000

Location

Life Magazine Office

One Time Warner Center New York NY 10019

New York, NY 10019

United States

40° 46' 4.422" N, 73° 58' 56.4096" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Hill

Respondent

Time Inc.

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 374 (1967)

Argued

Wednesday, April 27, 1966

Reargued:

October 18-19, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Advocates

Harold R. Medina, Jr. (Reargued the cause for appellant)

Richard M. Nixon (Reargued the cause for appellee)

Facts of the Case

In 1952, three escaped convicts took James Hill, his wife, and their five children hostage in their Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home. After nineteen hours, the family was released unharmed. The convicts were later apprehended in a violent clash with police during which two of them were killed. In 1953, Joseph Hays' published a novel based on the Hill family's ordeal. When the novel was subsequently made into a play, Life Magazine ("Life") printed an article about the play that mirrored many of its inaccuracies concerning the Hill family's experience. Alleging that it deliberately misrepresented his story, Hill sought damages against Life. On appeal from an adverse ruling, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court remanded for a new trial where a reduced adverse ruling was imposed on Life. Following an unsuccessful appeal in the New York Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted Life's owner, Time Inc. ("Time") certiorari.

Question

Is a publication, containing misrepresentations about the subject of its coverage, protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Time Inc., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court set aside the Appellate ruling against Time because the lower court failed to instruct the jury that Time's liability was contingent upon a showing that it knowingly and recklessly published false statements about the Hill family. The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. The Court remanded for retrial under the new jury instruction.

Rosenblatt v. Baer

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Rosenblatt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Baer

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

383 U.S. 75 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1965

Decided

Monday, February 21, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Rosenblatt, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Garrison v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Louisiana

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Garrison

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 64 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1964

Reargued:

Monday, October 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, November 23, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Garrison, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

New York Times v. Sullivan

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:05:59 +0000

Location

New York Times Office

620 Eighth Avenue New York NY 10018

New York, NY 10018

United States

40° 45' 22.3236" N, 73° 59' 25.3608" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

New York Times

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Abernathy v. Sullivan, No. 40

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Argued

January 6-7, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Advocates

M. Roland Nachman, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Herbert Wechsler (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for New York Times, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.

Barr v. Matteo

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

350

Petitioner

Barr

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Matteo

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 564 (1959)

Argued

Monday, April 20, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Barr, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Farmers Union v. Wday

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

248

Petitioner

Farmers Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Wday

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 525 (1959)

Argued

Monday, March 23, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Wday, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Communication Act of 1934

None

Howard v. Lyons

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Howard

Respondent

Lyons

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 593 (1959)

Argued

December 8-9, 1958

Reargued:

April 20-21, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 29, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Howard, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None