Law Commons^™

Freedom Of Speech And Press

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech & Press: Prozeralik V. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech & Press: Gross V. New York Times, Co.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech & Press: Polish American Immigration Relief Committee, Inc. V. Relax

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Importance Of A Contextual Approach To Libel Law: The Impact Of Immuno Ag. V. Moor-Jankowski And Milkovich V. Lorain Journal Co., Margaret Chan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reporting The Truth And Setting The Record Straight: An Analysis Of U.S. And Japanese Libel Laws, Ellen M. Smith

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Note argues that U.S. courts and lawmakers should adopt some aspects of Japanese libel law. Part I compares the balances struck in U.S. and Japanese libel law between promoting press freedoms and protecting individual interests. Part II focuses on the extent to which each system succeeds in addressing the objectives of encouraging aggressive, accurate reporting, and compensating libel victims. Finally, Part III proposes a new U.S. libel standard that would adopt, with some modifications, key elements of Japanese libel law without running afoul of established U.S. constitutional requirements.

Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, Geoffrey Bennett, Russell L. Weaver

Journal Articles

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions. Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel actions."

The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice." In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false …

New York Times Co V Sullivan: The 'Actual Malice' – Standard And Editorial Decision-Making, Geoffrey Bennett, Russel L. Weaver

Journal Articles

In an effort to explore conflicting views of the New York Times decision, this article compares how the British media functions under Britain's more restrictive defamation laws with how the US media functions under the actual malice standard. It does so based on interviews with reporters, editors, defamation lawyers, and others involved in the media in an effort to understand how they decide which stories to publish, and to gain some understanding of how libel laws affect editorial decision-making.

Freedom Of Speech And The Press

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Libel Reform Seriously, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Student Publications, The First Amendment, And State Speech, T. D. Buckley Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

The lower federal courts and state courts have been applying the first amendment in student press cases arising at public colleges and high schools since 1967. But ordinary first amendment analysis is inadequate in most student press disputes. As a result the courts in some cases have been unable to articulate satisfactorily the bases for good decisions. And in other cases the real issues generated in student press litigations have been ignored. This Article evaluates the cases so far decided, and proposes a new approach to student press disputes which would rationalize what the courts have intuitively done correctly in …

Defamation—A Standard Of Review For Constitutional Facts, Susan Stevens

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Tort Liability Of Investigative Reporters, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

One of the most significant developments in recent years, in both constitutional and tort law, began with the holding in New York Times v. Sullivan that the first amendment places substantial restrictions on the common law tort action for defamation. Although the ramifications of New York Times are still developing,that continuing reform of the law of defamation will result is to be expected. The readjustment of the balancing of conflicting interests that New York Times represents came about at the behest of the press,and the press have been the primary beneficiaries of these developments. Indeed, some commentators contend that the …

Resolving The Paradox Of The Innocent Construction Rule, David Larson

Faculty Scholarship

The application of the innocent construction rule in defamation cases has led to illogical and questionable holdings. This article will explain the nature of that rule and illustrate its use by focusing on cases arising in Illinois. It will review the recent case of Chapski v. Copley Press, where the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the innocent construction rule, and raise the possibility that additional reform may be necessary in Illinois. Finally, other jurisdictions relying upon similar rules of interpretation will be identified and discussed.

A Reprise On Herbert V. Lando And The Law Of Defamation, Howard O. Hunter

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Nathaniel Goldstein Memorial Lecture, Murray I. Gurfein

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Cases, Alan W. Duncan, Elton G. Snowden, William A. Holby, Joseph W. Gibbs

Vanderbilt Law Review

Constitutional Law -- Newsperson's Privilege - The First Amendment Guarantee of a Free Press Protects Against Compelled Disclosure of a Journalist's Exercise of Editorial Control and Judgment

Plaintiff, a former army officer who had achieved national prominence by claiming that his superiors ignored his reports of atrocities by American forces in Vietnam,' brought a libel suit against defendant television producer, reporter, and network for broadcasting a program that cast doubt upon plaintiff's allegations. Contending that defendant did not present available information corroborating plaintiff's claims, plaintiff sought discovery of the producer's beliefs, opinions, intent, and conclusions in preparing the program.

Alan …

State Court Reactions To Gertz V. Robert Welch,Inc.: Inconsistent Results And Reasoning, Charles W. Gerdts, Iii, Kevin J. Wolff

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development will examine the state court reactions to Gertz, describe the reasons for the lack of uniformity in their conclusions, and suggest an approach to balancing the first amendment and reputational interests.

Revitalizing The Clear-And-Present-Danger Test: Toward A Principled Interpretation Of The First Amendment, Jeffrey M. Shaman

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - First Amendment - Freedom Of Speech And Press - New York Times Standard Is Inapplicable To A Defamed Individual Who Is Neither A Public Official Nor A Public Figure, And Only Actual Injury Is Compensable Absent Showing Of Actual Malice, William E. Molchen Ii

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Expanding Constitutional Protection For The News Media From Liability For Defamation: Predictability And The New Synthesis, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The tort of defamation has a long and complex history dating back to the sixteenth century. Though this tort from the very beginning did not find favor with the law courts, it has managed to survive into the second half of the twentieth century. But this survival may not endure much longer since the Supreme Court has found a deep conflict between the law of defamation and the first amendment. The reasons for this conflict and the Supreme Court's basic resolution of it in favor of first amendment values have been the subject of much scholarly comment, but the Court's …

Further Limits On Libel Actions - Extension Of The New York Times Rule To Libels Arising From Discussion Of Public Issues, W. H. Flamm Jr.

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Libelous Ridicule By Journalists, James M. Naughton, Eric R. Gilbertson

Cleveland State Law Review

Proof of actual malice, or even establishing that an attack in ridicule bears no relation to public conduct, seems at best, extremely difficult to bring out. The public interest in protecting itself, through criticism of those in prominence, weighs much more heavily on the scales of justice than does the interest of public figures in protecting themselves from personal attack. So go ahead and draw your cartoons, Conrad. Keep sticking pins in the kewpie dolls of America, Art Buchwald. And tell it like it is, Pogo.

How Far May Newspapers Go In Criticizing, Richard Szilagyi

Cleveland State Law Review

Any written or printed article which is false and is conveyed by publication to third parties is defamatory or "libelous." That is, it is actionable if it tends to subject the plaintiff to hatred, scorn, ridicule, public contempt or disgrace; or if it induces a substantial number of respectable community members to avoid, shun, or deprive him of their friendly association, even though the defamation imputes no moral turpitude to him. Despite a long history of judicial decisions and numerous discussions and writings by the legal profession, there are few areas of the law so unsettled as the law of …

The Absolute Privilege Of The Executive In Defamation, Arno C. Becht

Vanderbilt Law Review

Should executive officers have an absolute privilege to commit defamation? This is Professor Becht's inquiry as he traces the evolution and application of this privilege from its origin in England through its development in American state and federal courts. After balancing the factors for and against absolute immunity, the writer reaches the conclusion that officials should be reduced to a qualified privilege in defamation.

Defamation, A Camouflage Of Psychic Interests: The Beginning Of A Behavioral Analysis, Walter Probert

Vanderbilt Law Review

Does the law of defamation need to be reformed? The author thinks so. Professor Probert rejects the doctrine of libel per se and questions the courts' understanding and use of the term "reputation." It is his belief that plaintiffs on an individual basis should have increased benefit of the knowledge accumulated by the various social sciences in proving the harm done by the alleged defamation, with more liberalization in the requirements of pleading and proof than is now generally countenanced by the courts.

Statement Of Fact Versus Statement Of Opinion -- A Spurious Dispute In Fair Comment, Herbert W. Titus

Vanderbilt Law Review

In attempting to solve problems in a variety of areas lawyers continuously make use of a distinction between statements of "fact" on the one hand and those of "opinion" on the other.' So versatile is this distinction that it has been used to solve problems raised in such diverse areas of the law as evidence and defamation. However, since the turn of the century the fact-opinion dichotomy has been severely criticized as a means of deciding what kinds of testimony should be allowed in a legal trial. Yet in the law of defamation, where this distinction has been extensively applied …