Libel Cases

Electronic Responsibility: Farmers Education and Cooperative Union v. WDAY (1959)

FACTS: independent candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Dakota, accused the FECUA of being controlled by Communists over WDAY.

IMPORTANCE: USSC declared the broadcasters are immune from liability for defamation by political candidates in political ads.

Identification: Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952)

FACTS: Beaiharnais distributed racist literature. He was prosecuted under an Illinois group libel statute (he was a part of the KKK)

IMPORTANCE: USSC ruled that defamation directed at ethnic and racial groups can be illegal even when it is not directed at a specific individual

Identification: Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Lait (1952)

FACTS: a book called female employees "hookers" and male employees "fairies"

IMPORTANCE: A court-ruled identification can occur when defamation is aimed at a small group
- USSC said the men could sue because they were only a small group, but the women could not because their group was much bigger and they were not actually identified

Identification: Cosgrove Studio and Camera v. Pane

FACTS: Cosgrove ran an ad promising customers a free roll of film for every roll brought in for processing. Pane warned readers in his ad, "You Get Nothing for Nothing". Pane said he would not inflate his film processing prices to give film away

IMPORTANCE: Identification can occur even when the person/business is not specifically named in the defamatory statement.
- Cosgrove was not specifically named but the court said that the ad was clearly directed toward this certain business

Criminal Libel: Garrison v. Louisiana (1964)

FACTS: the district attorney for New Orleans Parish, attacked judges stating they were lazy, "vacation-minded," and sympathetic to criminals.

IMPORTANCE: USSC said state govts. can't censor critics of govt. w/o due process and that the role of the citizen critic of gov. Must be protected by the 1st Amendment.
- For all practical purposes declared criminal libel unconstitutional!!!!

LANDMARK CASE: NYT v. Sullivan (1964)

FACTS: police official sued the NY Times for a March 29, 1960, advertisement purchased by a committee of civil rights activists. The ad contained several false statements and minor inaccuracies.

IMPORTANCE: USSC declared that public officials may recover for defamation upon proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. (established the"New York Times Standard.")

Defines Public Officials: Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966)

FACTS: Rosenblatt, a reporter, wrote a story critical of the manager that a county-owned ski resort was managed by Bear.

IMPORTANCE: USSC ruled that the "Public Official" criteria were designated to include those in the hierarchy of government employees who have substantial responsibility for the conduct of govt. affairs.

Good Journalistic Technique: Walker v. A.P. (1967)

FACTS: A.P. reported that retired army officer Major General Edwin Walker encouraged violence and led a charge against federal marshals during the integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962.

IMPORTANCE: USSC declared courts will seek to determine whether a journalist had, or should had serious doubts about the truth of defamatory statements. (The element of time to check and verify sources is very important in this case)

Bad Journalistic Technique: Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967)

FACTS: The Saturday Evening Post reported that Georgia football coach Wally Butts fixed a football game w/ Alabama. The Post relied on the unsupported testimony of a check forger.

IMPORTANCE: USSC declared that they will examine the credibility of sources, the believability of the defamatory allegations, and the effort made to investigate the statements in question.

Politician Meets Actual Malice Standard: Goldwater v. Ginzberg (1969)

FACTS: Ralph Ginzburg, editor of Fact, asserted Goldwater suffered from a mental disease. In a second article, he edited responses to a mail survey from psychiatrists to distort their comments about Goldwater.

IMPORTANCE: creating false statements to supports one's predetermined view is evidence of actual malice

Parody is Protected: Cohen v. NY Herald (1970)

FACTS: Jimmy Breslin wrote a satirical on a mob hit that was witnessed by Cohen

IMPORTANCE: "mere exaggeration, irony, or wit" does not make an article defamatory

Innocent Construction Rule: Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Association v. Bressler (1970)

FACTS: The Greenbelt News Review wrote a story in which Bresler, a land developer, was charged with blackmail because he offered to sell land to the city only after the city rezoned a different parcel he owned.

IMPORTANCE: the use of words, such as "blackmail," when used in a public forum was determined to be non-actionable.

Innocent Construction Rule: Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971)

FACTS: George Rosenbloom, a little-known businessman, was arrested for selling obscene material. News of his arrest was aired over the radio

IMPORTANCE: the burden of proof imposed on public officials extends to anyone involved in matters of public concern, regardless of whether they were famous or unknown

Good Journalistic Technique but Failure: Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron (1971)

FACTS: Leonard Damron, running for the office of mayor of Crystal River, Florida, was falsely reported by the Star-Banner of having been charged with perjury.

IMPORTANCE: no matter how remote in time or place a charge of criminal conduct against a public official is, it is always relevant to his/her fitness for office.

Cases that Defines Public Figure!!!!!!!: Gretz v. Welch (1974)

FACTS: attorney, was libeled by an American Opinion article. The magazine charged that Gertz had engineered a "frame-up" of a policeman convicted for shooting a young boy.

IMPORTANCE: defined a public figure as...
(1) one who thrusts oneself into the public arena involuntarily or assumes a role voluntarily in which publication is expected or assumed. (2) States may define the level or proof for a private person.

Cases that Defines Public Figure: Time v. Firestone (1976)

FACTS: Mrs. Firestone sued Time after a "Milestones" item incorrectly reported that Russell Firestone had won a divorce on the grounds "of extreme cruelty and adultery."

IMPORTANCE: ruled that Mrs. Firestone did not assume any role of special prominence in the affairs of society. (she was a private individual & only had to prove negligence)

Cases that Define Public Figure: Herbert v. Lando (1979)

FACTS: The 1973 "60 Minutes" broadcast questioned allegations by Colonel Anthony Herbert of an official cover-up of atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.

IMPORTANCE: a journalist's mind may be probed (questioned) in a libel case in order to establish actual malice.

Cases that Defined Public Figure: Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association (1979)

FACTS: Ilya Wolston refused to testify in 1958 before a federal grand jury investigating Soviet spy activities. Reader's Digest reported this event 20 years later on a story concerning famous spy cases.

IMPORTANCE: Wolston did not thrust himself into the forefront of the controversy, but was "dragged unwillingly" into the spotlight.

Private Individual Criteria in VA: Gazette v. Harris (1985)

FACTS: Litigation involved 3 cases relating to misidentification

IMPORTANCE: declared that negligence is the legal standard of proof for private individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia

Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)

FACTS: Greenmoss Builders, a construction company, had a credit-reporting agency falsely say the company had filed for bankruptcy. In reality, an employee of D&B confused the records of a former Greenmoss employee with the firm.

IMPORTANCE: The USSC held that credit reports are a private matter and not a matter of "public concern."

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1986)

IMPORTANCE: private individuals seeking damages on matters of public concern have the burden of proving that the offending statements are false (overturned laws in 8 states)

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989)

IMPORTANCE: newspaper made a "deliberate decision not to acquire knowledge" that would have revealed the falsity of charges against Connaughton

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990)

Facts: The News-Herald published a sports column stating wrestling coach Michael Milkovich had lied under oath to the Ohio Athletic Commission concerning his role in a fight that broke out during a wrestling match.

IMPORTANCE: fact-based opinions expressed in editorials do not enjoy special protection under the First Amendment.

Masson v. New Yorker (1991)

IMPORTANCE: minor changes in quotations fail to constitute defamation. The plaintiff has a burden to show that the altered words substantially damage his/her reputation.