Law Commons^™

Why The Actual Malice Test Should Be Eliminated, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

Under traditional common law, a plaintiff could recover damages for libel if she could prove that the defendant had published a factual statement about the plaintiff that tended to injure the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff, at most, was required to show negligence to recover damages for libel. While the amount of money that any given plaintiff could recover in damages was uncertain, one thing was clear: the First Amendment would not protect libel. In 1964, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court radically upended this received view of libel as unprotected speech. According to Sullivan, …

What The Lawyers Who Sue The Press Think Of The Press, And Media Law, Jonathan Peters

Popular Media

“HAVE A SCORE TO SETTLE WITH THE PRESS? Charles Harder, the media lawyer who ground Gawker.com to dust, is your man.”

That was the subhead of a GQ profile of Harder published in 2016, after he won a $140 million jury verdict for Hulk Hogan against Gawker (later settled for $31 million). The profile went on to say that Harder had established himself “as perhaps the greatest threat in the United States to journalists, the First Amendment, and the very notion of a free press.”

Whether or not that’s true, Harder has said it would be “awesome” if the Gawker …

The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law, Yonathan A. Arbel, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience.

Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than statements made without accountability. Strict defamation law would tend to increase the perceived reliability of statements, which in some cases can …

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court added the injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgments. The prior restraint label resembles a death sentence. This article maintains that such massive retaliation is overkill.

A judge’s injunction that forbids the defendant’s tort of defamation tests Near and prior restraint doctrine because defamation isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Arguing that the anti-defamation injunction has outgrown outright bans under the prior restraint rule and the equitable Maxim that “Equity will not enjoin defamation” …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Discovering Trump 06-22-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Donald Trump And The Full-Employment-For-Lawyers Presidency, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Moguls And The Media 1-2-2017, David A. Logan, Roger Williams University

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration, In The Case Of Murray V. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co., Case No. 2015-0127, Supreme Court Of Ohio, David Forte

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Forte authored an Amicus brief in support of motion for reconsideration, in the case of Murray v. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co., Case no. 2015-0127, Supreme Court of Ohio, on issues dealing with free speech and libel. The brief was filed on July 20, 2015. In the brief, Forte writes, 'I have chosen to participate as an amicus curiae in support of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Appellants Robert E. Murray, Murray Energy Corporation, American Energy Corporation, and The Ohio Valley Coal Company because as a career constitutional scholar, I believe that Appellants’ case presents questions of keen interest to …

The Making Of Modern Libel Law: A Glimpse Behind The Scenes, Stephen Wermiel, Lee Levine

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Book Review: The Free Press Crisis Of 1800: Thomas Cooper's Trial For Seditious Libel, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article was an invited book review of a book of the same title by Peter Charles Hoffer. Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia, has published this accessible case history as part of the University Press of Kansas’s Landmark Law Cases & American Society series, which he co-edits.

The book discusses one of the cases arising as a result of the Alien & Sedition Act under the presidency of John Adams, mostly targeting Republicans who editorialized against the Adams administration.

Anonymity In Cyberspace: What Can We Learn From John Doe?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the evolution of the law governing libel suits against anonymous "John Doe" defendants based on Internet speech. Between 1999 and 2009, courts crafted new First Amendment doctrines to protect Internet speakers from having their anonymity automatically stripped away upon the filing of a libel action. Courts also adapted existing First Amendment protections for hyperbole, satire, and other nonfactual speech to protect the distinctive discourse of Internet message boards. Despite these positive developments, the current state of the law is unsatisfactory. Because the scope of protection for anonymous Internet speech varies greatly by jurisdiction, resourceful plaintiffs can make …

The Fact-Conjecture Framework In U.S. Libel Law: Four Problems, Brian C. Murchison

Scholarly Articles

A requirement of U.S. defamation law is that an actionable statement be factual in nature, but courts since Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), have had considerable difficulty in distinguishing factual from non-factual statements and in articulating the value of non-factual public discourse in all its diversity. This Article reviews four topics - intent, context, conjecture, and hyperbole - that have been particularly troublesome to courts. It argues for a fresh appraisal of Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Milkovich and brings into the conversation the works of several current political theorists on the contributions of passionate political …

Relative Access To Corrective Speech: A New Test For Requiring Actual Malice, Aaron Perzanowski

Articles

This Article reexamines the First Amendment protections provided by the public figure doctrine. It suggests that the doctrine is rooted in a set of out-dated assumptions regarding the media landscape and, as a result, has failed to adapt in a manner that accounts for our changing communications environment.

The public figure doctrine, which imposes the more rigorous actual malice standard of fault on defamation plaintiffs who enjoy greater access to mass media, was constructed in an era defined by one-to-many communications media. Newspapers, broadcasters, and traditional publishers exhausted the Court's understanding of the means of communicating with mass audiences. As …

Sullivan's Paradox: The Emergence Of Judicial Standards Of Journalism, Brian C. Murchison

Scholarly Articles

In this article, the authors examine the development of libel law in America since the Supreme Court's watershed decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and suggest that Sullivan affords members of the press less protection than many think. Sullivan's actual malice standard invites judges to create norms of acceptable journalistic conduct for news gathering, which members of the press and their lawyers use as maps to navigate around libel liability. The authors examine a large number of these judicial decisions and note the types of journalistic conduct at issue and what conduct the courts view positively. The authors …

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.

A Defense Of The Annenberg Libel Reform Proposal, Rodney A. Smolla

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Racial Defamation As Free Speech: Abusing The First Amendment, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

The traditional view of the first amendment's free speech guarantee as absolute, allowing few and narrow exceptions, reflects the Constitution's dedication to an open and unfettered exchange of ideas. Those thoughts that are abhorrent to a free society, the argument goes, will wither when aired but fester if suppressed. Moreover, who is to decide which ideas are offensive? The interests of the state may well be inferior to those of the people, the wisdom of public servants often suspect in quality and motivation. But freedom of speech is so precious and delicate a liberty it must be preserved at great …

"Where Have You Gone, Walter Cronkite?" The First Amendment And The End Of Innocence, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

None available.

The Future Of Defamation In Illinois After Colson V. Steig And Chapski V. The Copley Press, Inc., Rodney A. Smolla, Linda A. Malone

Scholarly Articles

None available.

Libel Per Quod In Florida, Richard C. Ausness

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The purpose of this article is to trace the development of the rules of defamation with particular reference to extrinsic fact. A defamatory communication is one that tends to diminish the esteem, respect, good will, or confidence in which a person is held or to excite adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him. To be actionable under the modem law, however, the defendant's statement must be capable of a defamatory meaning in the sense normally understood.

Defamation consists of the separate torts of libel and slander. Historically, these torts evolved independently of each other, and as a result …

Book Review Of The Book Of Libel; Dangerous Words, William F. Swindler

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.