| Term | Definition |
|---|
| NY Times v. Sullivan | ct rejects truth as sufficient protection and requires public officials to prove constitutional actual malice by clear and convincing evidence |
| Garrison v. Louisiana | ct applies NY Tims to a criminal defamation case against a public official who criticizes other pub officials |
| Rosenblatt v. Baer | ct provides "independent interest" test to determine which public employees are public officials |
| Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts/ Asoc. Press v. Walker | ct rejects a lower standard for public figures and holds them to the NY Times standard |
| St. Amant v. Thompson | ct rejects objective interpretation of constitutional actual malice and provides detailed guidance as to the meaning of teh subjective def. of reckless disregard |
| Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. | ct rejects a "status" approach in favor of a "sbject matter" approach and applies NY Times to a PRIVATE indiv. caught up in a matter of gen. interest or concern |
| Time Inc. v. Pape | public official suing for an inaccurate newspaper acct. of an official fed. report must show a knowing or reckless disregard of accuracy |
| Monitor Patriot co v. Roy/Ocala Star-Banner co. v. Damron | NY Times applies to candidates for public office and adopts broad guidelines for what defamatory matter is relevant (criminality is per se relevant) |
| Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. | rejects Rosenbloom, revives the "status" approach and adopts a minimal fault (negligence) standard for PRIVATE individuals |
| Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co. | adopts respondeat superior in cases for compensatory damages adn leaves open issue of whether Gertz applies in false light private person-public concern cases |
| Time Inc. v. Firestone | person involved in public divorce is not a "vortex" public figure and also adopts a neg. standard for inaccuracy in private person libel actions based on abuse of fair report |
| Wolston v. Readers Digest Ass'n | mere newsworthiness is, as a matter of law, held to be insufficient for public figure status |
| Herbert v. Lando | ct rejects special 1st amend. discovery rules as to public persons required to prove constitutional actual malice |
| Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders Inc. | ct refuses to apply Gertz to matters of "purely private concern", rejects media v. non-media distinction and adopts distinction bet. matters of "public interest" and "purely private concern" |
| McDonald v, Smith | rejects media/non-media distinction & holds rt of petition doesn't support absolute defense but only justifies application of the NY Times rule |
| Philidelphia Newspaper Co. v. Hepps | ct extends teh Gertz requirement of P proof of minimal fault to proof of falsity |
| Harte-Hanks Comm's Inc. v. Connaughton | holds that evidence of motive and deviation from professional standards, though not alone sufficient, are admissible circumstantial evidence to show constitutional actual malice |
| Milkovich v. Lorain Journal | ct holds "rhetorical hyperbole" and "imaginatice speech" nonactionable and requires the defamatory matter be provable as factually false in matters of public concern (for media Ds) |
| Masson v. New Yorker Magazine | ct leaves defamation as a matter of state law and says that the "incremental harm" version of teh "libel proof" P was not mandated by 1st amendment |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace