Actual Malice Test

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964): Public officials who sue for libel due to criticism about their official conduct must prove actual malice.

L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the New York Times Co. for printing an advertisement about the civil rights movement in the south that included defamation. The advertisement, taking up an entire page in the New York Times, was entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices” and it suggested an unpredicted wave of terror had been directed against those who participated in the civil rights movement in the south. Within the article, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was allegedly arrested for perjury as part of a campaign to destroy his efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote.  The article did not mention Sullivan by name, but he claimed it was referred to him directly since he had responsibility over the police. The New York Times asserted they did not have any reason to believe the contents were false. Regardless, there was no independent effort to check its accuracy before printing the story. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove he had been harmed. The article did, however, include factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment. You can listen to the oral arguments from this case here.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974): Further clarified incidences when the actual malice test applies.

Elmer Gertz was the attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family’s son. Within the magazine American Opinion, the John Birch Society accused Gertz of being a “Leninist” and a “Communist-fronter” due to his choice to represent clients who were suing a law enforcement officer. Gertz lost the libel case in a lower court because the magazine had not violated the actual malice test for libel, which the Supreme Court had established in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court reversed this decision because Gertz was not a public official or figure. The Court claimed ordinary citizens should have more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. You can listen to the oral arguments from this case here. 

These two cases relate to a situation in the news within the past year about “American Sniper” Chris Kyle and Gov. Jesse Ventura. Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was sued by Gov. Ventura due to passages in his autobiography that he claimed were false and defamatory. Although Gov. Ventura was not named specifically, he was alluded to in the book in a chapter called “Punching Out Scruff Face,” about the confrontation Chris Kyle had with a celebrity in a California bar in 2006. Within interviews with Kyle after the release of the book, he claimed he was referring to Gov. Jesse Ventura in this specific chapter. In July 2014, a jury sided with Gov. Ventura, finding he had been defamed. He was awarded more than $1.8 million.

Chris Kyle was killed in Texas last year, but his widow, Taya, continued to argue that the laws and evidence at trial did not support the jury’s award. A request to order a new trial or set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of former Gov. Jesse Ventura of Minnesota was rejected. The judge claimed the trial was fair and the verdict was supported by substantial evidence. The test used in the previous two cases discussed was applied to this current case because Gov. Ventura was able to prove actual malice. The actual malice test affirms the information about Gov. Ventura in Chris Kyle’s autobiography was defamatory. I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, but this case was thought provoking to me. I think it would be interesting to read the chapter of the book that caused a $1.8 million libel suit.

Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corporation

Kato Kaelin, a houseguest at O.J. Simpson’s estate, testified to the various events surrounding the killing s of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in October of 1995. After Simpson was acquitted of the double murders, Globe Communications Corporation’s weekly newspaper, the “National Examiner”, published an article about Kaelin, claiming “Kato” Kaelin’s friends believed he was still a suspect in the murders. The article continued, stating LAPD cops were working diligently to put Kato behind bars for perjury.

Kaelin demanded a retraction, but it was refused. A libel action against Globe in the superior Court of California was filed by Kaelin, but Globe removed it to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Globe argued that even if the front page headline could be found defamatory, the article itself could not. Kaelin argued that the headline could be read as the cops believe Kato committed the murders and he fears he is wanted for perjury.

In reality, the cops did not think Kaelin committed the murder and he was not a suspect. Trial court granted Globe summary judgment because Kaelin could not prove that the Globe acted with actual malice. Kato appealed following this decision. The argument Globe made about headlines alone not being capable of being involved in libel action suits in California was unhelpful to Kaelin’s case. He was eventually able to prove the headline was false and defamatory and the evidence provided was enough.

The news editor of the “National Examiner” did acknowledge the headline was not true to the story. This statement alone was enough to show the headline was defamatory and the editors at Globe at had acted in actual malice. Kaelin’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals did in fact rule in his favor. The decision ruled that while stories could be accurate, the headlines could commit libel separately.

Kaelin brought enough evidence to court in the first place. The headline was clearly defamatory and the editors intent could have been nothing else except actual malice. The statement from the news editor, John Garton, clarified the truth that Globe never believed Kaelin was a murder suspect; they were just trying to sell papers. Reversing the district court’s previous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals judged newspapers may not rely on false headlines with defamatory content to sell their papers. Just because the headline sounds interesting and catches the attention of more people does not make it right. Using false information about someone as a headline in order to make more money is not ethical by any means. 

Take a look at this article about "The Man in the Guesthouse", reinforcing Kato's role as a key witness in the trial and nothing more:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103866,00.html

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

After following the Reed v. Town of Gilbert case closely, I have become more frustrated with the continued arguments in the Supreme Court. Many people are arguing this as a religious rights case, but I do not agree. This case is about the distinction on the basis of what the sign can say in the town of Gilbert in regard to time, place and manner.

I understand the city’s perspective for their decision to regulate specific signs (political, ideological, directional, etc.), but I believe this is a constitutional issue that the town is not recognizing. They are not allowing a church to keep their directional signs up for longer than 12 hours because they are under the category of directional signs with very strict guidelines on content, placement and time. The church would like to invite people to their service and give directions to the service, but why even bother with signs if they can only put them up as the sun is going down and they are required to remove them an hour after the service?

I think this case involves a Free Speech Clause challenge and not a Free Exercise Clause or Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge. I would like to know the governments compelling interest for this ordinance. This argument is about free speech rights for everyone who would like to use signs in the city for an event, not just religious rights in Gilbert, Arizona.

Currently, the Supreme Court is using strict scrutiny to review the case: “Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest” (Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny). Their concern for safety and aesthetics does not seem like a good enough reason to restrict the amount of time directional signs are allowed to be placed, especially when compared to the political signs that are there almost all year long in the right-of-way. How is this respecting their freedom of speech?

It’s not. The city has responded by saying they were complying with a statute of the state; in other words, “The State made us do it”. I think the Supreme Court understands how absurd this statute is and believes freedom of speech, our First Amendment right, is being violated in the town of Gilbert. The US Supreme Court, in my opinion, should rule this unconstitutional. These statutes need to be reviewed and changed before any other First Amendment rights are violated.