Flashcards
Constitutional defamation
Cards in this deck (3)
- 1Star cannot successfully sue News under a libel theory because the facts do not appear to support a finding that the reporting was done with actual malice. In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964), the United States Supreme Court held that public officials seeking to recover damages in a defamation action (libel or slander) must prove that the defendant reporter acted with “actual malice,” defined as “knowledge that [the published defamation] was false” or “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Proof of negligent falsehood is insufficient to permit liability for defamation. The Supreme Court has extended this standard to public figures who assume “roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influ¬ence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”Here, Star, a world-famous actress, is undeniably a public figure. She can recover only if she proves that News acted with actual malice, i.e., that News knew that the woman Scoop photo-graphed was not Star, or that it acted with reckless disregard with regard to that fact. There is no indication that News acted with knowledge of falsity; indeed, we are told that Scoop “honestly believed” that Star was Lex’s adulterous partner. But it is a much closer question whether News acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth. While logical or factual consistency is not demanded by New York Times, the fact that the same edition of News reported Star to be in another state shows that News very easily could have discovered Scoop’s report to be untrue. The fact that “most people” could have seen that Star was not the woman in Scoop’s photograph also provides some support for recklessness in reporting. These factors probably are inadequate to show that News acted with reckless disregard for the facts, but it is a close question.
- 2News is probably immune from liability for invading Lex’s privacy because the published information was lawfully obtained and involves a matter of public concern. In a series of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that where a media defendant has lawfully obtained a private fact, such as the identity of a rape victim, the First Amendment shields the media from liability as long as the news story involves a matter of public concern. See, e.g., Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975); Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524 (1989); Bartnicki v. Vopper Corp., 532 U.S. 514 (2001). In some jurisdictions, the First Amendment protection is incorporated directly into the tort rule, and the disclosure of private facts is not tortious if the facts are “of legitimate concern to the public.”In this case, the First Amendment would shield News from liability. First, neither News nor its employee Scoop acted unlawfully in procuring the picture. Scoop took the photograph from a public vantage point and was not breaking the law in doing so. Indeed, publication of the picture was not really publication of a “private” fact at all. Lex was kissing the young woman on a public street. Although he was in a private car, passersby (e.g., Scoop) apparently could observe the kiss. A court might well conclude that Lex had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances.
Moreover, the news story about Lex’s adultery addresses a matter of public concern. Lex is undeniably a public figure under the Gertz test, see Point One, as he is a nationally famous lawyer and television personality. In addition, given the strong position he has taken publicly opposing marital infidelity(부정), evidence that his personal actions belie his public arguments is relevant to the public debate that Lex has voluntarily thrust himself into. Accordingly, because the photograph was newsworthy and la - 3이어서lawfully obtained, News cannot be held liable for invasion of privacy.
Information
- Description
- Constitution law Flashcards on Constitutional defamation, created by Kawon Kim on 29/01/2017.
- Created by
- Kawon Kim
- Views
- 1
- Rating