Libel and the media
-
Upload
dan-kennedy -
Category
Education
-
view
4.026 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Libel and the media
![Page 1: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Libel and the media
Times v. Sullivan ushers in anuncertain new age of press freedom
![Page 2: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation
![Page 3: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation• Falsity
![Page 4: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation• Falsity• Fault
– Different standards for public officials (and public figures) and private figures. But no longer is libel a no-fault tort.
![Page 5: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation• Falsity• Fault• Publication
![Page 6: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation• Falsity• Fault• Publication• Identification
![Page 7: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Elements of libel
• Defamation• Falsity• Fault• Publication• Identification• Harm
![Page 8: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Evolution of libel
• Falsity was not always an element of libel: The greater the truth, the greater the harm
![Page 9: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Evolution of libel
• Falsity was not always an element of libel: The greater the truth, the greater the harm
• Fault was not an element of libel until the 1960s — it was a no-fault tort
![Page 10: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Evolution of libel
• Falsity was not always an element of libel: The greater the truth, the greater the harm
• Fault was not an element of libel until the 1960s — it was a no-fault tort
• How does requiring fault advance the purpose of the First Amendment?
![Page 11: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Libel versus slander
• What is the difference?
![Page 12: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Libel versus slander
• What is the difference?• Classic definition is that libel is written and
slander is spoken
![Page 13: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Libel versus slander
• What is the difference?• Classic definition is that libel is written and
slander is spoken• Packaged television and radio reports have
blurred the difference. Today we talk mainly about libel.
![Page 14: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Libel versus slander
![Page 15: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Can libel = prior restraint?
• In Near, Chief Justice Hughes wrote that the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law amounted to prior restraint
![Page 16: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Can libel = prior restraint?
• In Near, Chief Justice Hughes wrote that the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law amounted to prior restraint
• Hughes cited Blackstone on post-publication punishment
![Page 17: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Can libel = prior restraint?
• In Near, Chief Justice Hughes wrote that the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law amounted to prior restraint
• Hughes cited Blackstone on post-publication punishment
• Milton, in the Areopagitica, advocated after-the-fact punishment, including death
![Page 18: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Civil rights and libel
• As with Gitlow v. New York, the Times v. Sullivan decision must be seen within the broader context of the civil-rights movement
![Page 19: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Anthony Lewis
• Wrote Make No Law, a history of Times v. Sullivan
• Retired New York Times columnist
• Married to Margaret Marshall, chief justice of Mass. SJC
![Page 20: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ad on King’s behalf
• Published inNew York Times
in 1960
• Contained several minor errors
![Page 21: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Four ministers also sued
• Rev. Ralph Abernathy (right) with King in Alabama
• Idea was to keep Sullivan’s suit in state court
![Page 22: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Times, ministers lose
• Found liable in courtroom of judge who presided atre-enactment of Jefferson Davis’s inauguration
• $500,000 judgment• Libel a state matter —
or is it?
![Page 23: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Times v. Sullivan (1964)• Unanimous decision written by
William Brennan• Says Alabama court’s decision amounts to
punishment of seditious libel: criticism of government officials
• Therefore, the Alabama court’s action is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
![Page 24: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
William Brennan’s view
“[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and … it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials”
![Page 25: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Actual malice
• New standard of fault that public officials must show to prove libel
![Page 26: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Actual malice
• New standard of fault that public officials must show to prove libel
• Knowingly false
![Page 27: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Actual malice
• New standard of fault that public officials must show to prove libel
• Knowingly false• Reckless disregard for the truth
![Page 28: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
A libel earthquake
• 1967: Actual malice standard extended to public figures as well as officials
![Page 29: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
A libel earthquake
• 1967: Actual malice standard extended to public figures as well as officials
• 1974: Private figures must at least show negligence to win a libel suit
![Page 30: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
A libel earthquake
• 1967: Actual malice standard extended to public figures as well as officials
• 1974: Private figures must at least show negligence to win a libel suit
• 1989: Reckless disregard is defined as knowledge of probable falsehood
![Page 31: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Disadvantages for media
• Opens press defendants up to examination as to their state of mind
![Page 32: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Disadvantages for media
• Opens press defendants up to examination as to their state of mind
• Harms media credibility by creating a cynical attitude among press critics
![Page 33: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Disadvantages for public
• Virtually no recourse for public official or public figure
![Page 34: Libel and the media](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022052410/5549a9bab4c90507608b56ca/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Case study: Dan Rather
• A 1980s case very similar to the story that brought him down in 2004
• Won by testifying he believed documents were authentic
• If he had lost, could Rathergate have been avoided?