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.