Law Commons^™

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

Brian C. Murchison

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 …

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

Brian C. Murchison

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 …

Defamation Litigation Patterns Across The United States, England, And Australia, David Unwin

David Unwin

A good reputation is perhaps an individual’s most valuable asset. Yet it is capable of being destroyed in an instant. Defamation law recognizes and protects this interest by imposing tort liability. However, the freedom of speech is another bedrock legal principle. Imposing strict liability on any false, defamatory remark would unduly chill free speech. Thus, each national legal system must balance these two broad principles and reach a legal outcome which effectively protects an individual’s reputation without unduly burdening the exercise of speech.

This paper will first examine three jurisdictions’ defamation law jurisprudence: the United States, England and Wales, and …

Protecting Speech, Protecting Privacy: The Future Costs Of U.K. Libel Claims, Adelaide Scardino Lopez

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifteen Minutes Of Infamy: Privileged Reporting And The Problem Of Perpetual Reputational Harm, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Richard J. Peltz-Steele

This Article provides an overview of the labyrinth of media tort defenses, specifically the four privileges – fair comment, fair report, neutral reportage, and wire service – that come into play when the media republish defamatory content about criminal suspects and defendants without specific intent to injure. The Article then discusses these privileges in light of a hypothetical case involving a highly publicized crime and an indicted suspect, against whom charges are later dropped, but who suffers perpetual reputational harm from the out-of-context republication online of news related to his indictment. The Article demonstrates how the four privileges would operate …

Considering The Libel Trial Of Émile Zola In Light Of Contemporary Defamation Doctrine, Peter A. Zablotsky

Peter Zablotsky

Touro Law School's three-day conference on the Dreyfus affair provided an opportunity to re-examine the libel trial Émile Zola. A modern view on tort law is provided to analyze this case as if it unfolded today.

Speaking Freely On Public Issues: Criminal Suspects As Involuntary Limited-Purpose Public Figures, Daniel T. Pesciotta

Daniel T Pesciotta

This paper discusses an important First Amendment issue that has received virtually no attention from the United States Supreme Court: the question of involuntary public figures in defamation cases. Determining an individual’s public figure status is often the dispositive question in defamation litigation as private figures need typically only prove the defendant spoke negligently, whereas public figures must satisfy the much higher actual malice standard first articulated in New York Times v. Sullivan. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Court suggested that it is indeed possible for an individual to become a public figure involuntarily. Despite this …

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. V. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.: Does The Actual Malice Standard Of Gertz V. Robert Welch, Inc. Apply To Speech On Matters Of Purely Private Concern?, Jeff Boykin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recent Case You Might Find Of Interest Regarding A Bank Ultimately Prevailing In A Disputed Credit Card Transaction Matter, William P. Huttenbach

William P. Huttenbach

Recent case you might find of interest regarding a bank ultimately prevailing in a disputed credit card transaction matter. This case involves a credit card purchase, the customer contesting the charge, and subsequently suing their bank over the charges. See Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Michael S. Tran, M.D. and Thanh Tran., No. 05-11-01423-CV, 2013 WL 3205878 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 21, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Plaintiffs purchased medical equipment through Ebay, received the equipment, and were not satisfied. PayPal divided the payment into two credit card transactions. After having Dr. Tran fill out complaint forms, Citibank issued chargebacks …