Defamation Cases in the 21st Century

Colonel Anthony Herbert, an author, published a book about alleged Vietnam War atrocities and cover-ups.
A 60 Minutes broadcast with Harry Reasoner included a transition remark suggesting Herbert's claims should be taken with a grain of salt because he was trying to sell books.
Herbert sued the producer, Landau, and the 60 Minutes crew, claiming the remark was defamatory.
As a public figure due to book tours and prominence, Herbert needed to prove actual malice or reckless disregard.
Herbert sought to question the journalists about their editorial process: video editing, story construction, omitted quotations, and the journalist's mindset.
60 Minutes argued this infringed on the editorial process.
The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the journalist's state of mind is relevant during discovery to ascertain malice or recklessness.
This allows the plaintiff to gather evidence effectively to prove actual malice or reckless disregard.

Ilya Wolston's parents were investigated as Soviet spies, and he was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in 1948 but didn't appear.
Reader's Digest published a story about spies 20 years later, labeling Wolston as a spy due to his parents' involvement and his refusal to testify.
Wolston sued, claiming he was not involved in spying and should be classified as a private individual, needing only to prove negligence.
Reader's Digest argued he was a public figure from the 1950s.
The Supreme Court applied the Goertz v. Welch definition and concluded Wolston did not thrust himself into the forefront and was unwillingly dragged into the spotlight, classifying him as a private person.
This highlights the importance of the Goertz v. Welch definition in determining public vs. private figure status.

This is a series of three Virginia Supreme Court cases from 1985 establishing the standard for defamation suits by private individuals in Virginia.

The newspaper listed names in a court log of sexual assault cases.
The reporter misidentified the parents of the victims as being guilty of the sexual abuse due to misreading the court docket column headings.
The parents received approximately $20,000$ to $25,000$ each.

A story about a young woman who was sexually assaulted in a friend's apartment.
The newspaper failed to mention she was married but noted she was pregnant, implying the pregnancy resulted from the assault.
She was referred to as Miss Matthews instead of Mrs. Matthews, raising questions about her chastity.
She received approximately $15,000$ to $20,000$ from the Charlottesville Daily Progress.

A family believed they were identified in a child abuse study using false names.
The story discussed a child named Mark with a brain injury at Alexandria Hospital, implying child abuse by his family.
The Lewis family claimed their son Edward, who had a head injury from falling out of bed, was erroneously targeted.
The Lewis's were awarded approximately $$150,000**.

The standard for private individuals in Virginia is negligence.
Plaintiffs must prove they were identified and that there were inaccurate facts in the story.

Dun & Bradstreet, a credit reporting agency, circulated inaccurate credit information about Greenmoss Builders.
Greenmoss Builders was denied a loan for a spec house due to a report stating the company had declared bankruptcy.
In reality, a former employee had declared bankruptcy, not the company.
The Supreme Court ruled that credit reports are not a matter of public concern; therefore, the Rosenbloom v. Metromedia case did not apply.
Greenmoss Builders was entitled to recover damages for the tarnished image.

The Philadelphia Inquirer (not the National Enquirer) published an investigative report linking Heps, who owned a chain of stores, to organized crime families.
Heps sued.
Pennsylvania law at the time required the newspaper to prove the truth of the accusations rather than requiring Heps to prove falsity.
The Supreme Court ruled that private individuals involved in matters of public concern must prove the falsity of the published statements.
This overturned Pennsylvania law and similar laws in eight other states because the court wanted the individual who initiates the lawsuit to prove the burden of the information to be false.

Daniel Connaughton, a judge in Ohio, ran for re-election.
Two sisters claimed to the Hamilton Journal News that Connaughton had hired them to smear his opponent which the the news published.
Connaughton sued after losing the election, arguing the newspaper had a history of attacking him and that the sisters were unreliable sources.
The Supreme Court agreed, noting the newspaper's poor journalistic practices in relying solely on the sisters' testimony without seeking corroboration.
The court also considered the long-term animosity between Hart Hanks and Connaughton.
The court ruled in favor of Connaughton because the statements were false.

Michael Milkovich, a high school wrestling coach in Ohio, was involved in a violent fight that broke out at a wrestling match.
The Ohio State Athletic Commission held a hearing, where Milkovich testified under oath that he had nothing to do with the confrontation.
The News-Herald published an opinion piece stating the reporter believed Milkovich was lying.
Milkovich sued, claiming he was truthful.
The newspaper argued that the statement was pure opinion and protected from defamation claims.
The Supreme Court distinguished between pure opinions and fact-based opinions.
Accusing someone of lying under oath is a fact-based opinion, implying perjury.
The newspaper was responsible for providing evidence to support the claim that Milkovich was lying.
Pure opinions (e.g., about food or plays) are protected, but fact-based opinions require a higher burden of proof.

Geoffrey Masson was hired by Freud's grandchildren to run the Freud House Museum.
Janet Malcolm, a freelancer, wrote about Masson for The New Yorker.
Malcolm quoted Masson as calling himself the greatest Freudian analyst ever and an intellectual gigolo.
The Freud family fired Masson after reading the article.
Masson sued, claiming the quoted material was inaccurate.
The court addressed whether defamation could occur within quotation marks.
The court stated that minor changes to direct quotes, such as removing vocalized pauses, are permissible.
However, substantial alterations that fundamentally change the meaning of the statement could constitute malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Masson could not prove substantial changes, so The New Yorker was not held liable.
To avoid liability, changes to quotes must be minor and maintain the original thesis of the statement and not add an individual did not say, at which they can prove reckless disregard and recover.