New York Times v. Sullivan The Case: Advertising space was purchased in the New York Times by a coalition of civil rights leaders The advertisement described violent incidents against African Americans in South and encouraged others to join the cause against violence

New York Times v. Sullivan Montgomery, AL police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan sued for libel, saying he was defamed by the advertisement His name was not mentioned, although police who worked for him in Montgomery County were portrayed in a negative light

New York Times v. Sullivan The trial court ruled Sullivan was defamed, and awarded him $500,000 in damages The Alabama State Supreme Court upheld the decision and the damages The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision and created the standard of “actual malice” for public officials

New York Times v. Sullivan Rationale for the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: This case was clearly one of seditious libel The nation has a national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited When public officials take a government post, they must expect their work will be closely examined and criticized.

Public Figures Three Categories of Public Figures: Public officials All-purpose public figures Limited purpose public figures

Public Figures Individuals in all three categories must prove actual malice which has two elements: Proof of knowledge of falsity Reckless disregard for the truth

Public Officials To determine who is a public officials, courts must consider: What kind of government job the person has  Anyone who is elected to a government position = a public official  Is there a public interest in the person’s job prior to the controversy?

Public Officials Nature of the story Public officials must prove actual malice when the libelous remarks concern:  The way the plaintiff conducts him/herself in public office  The way the plaintiff does his/her official job  The plaintiff’s general fitness for the job

All-Purpose Public Figures “Occupy positions of such pervasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures” at all times.

Limited Purpose Public Figure Those “who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

Limited Purpose Public Figure Three criteria for determining if someone is a limited- purpose public figure: Must be a public controversy before publication/broadcast Plaintiff must have participated voluntarily in attempting to resolve this controversy Plaintiff must be actively seeking to influence public opinion

Public Figures Over Time Once someone is determined to be a public figure, he/she will always be a public figure in regard to the original issue.

Private Persons Must only prove negligence, a “failure to exercise reasonable care”

Private Persons Examples of Negligence: Reliance on an untrustworthy source Not reading or misreading pertinent documents Failure to check with an obvious source Carelessness in editing and news handling

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Four Parts of the Tort: The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless The defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous The defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress The emotional distress was severe Bottom line: outrageous action by the defendant

Funny Money Once again a clerk (this time at the Fashion Bug store in Greensburg, Pa. [but let’s change it to SLC, night of the Indigo Girls concert]) not only accepted an obviously bogus piece of currency (a ''$200'' bill featuring a likeness of President Bush), but also gave the customer back change (on a $99 purchase) – SL Trib News of the Weird – Online

Just the ‘facts’, Mam… The Weekly Whirled News, picked up the story and did some ‘investigative’ journalism, they asked the friend of the clerk. In the WWN, the next day, they reported that the person passing off the funny money was your client! The also reported that the incident took place in downtown Salt Lake City, and that your client was on their way to the Indigo Girls Concert.

The Prosecution: Dick Cheney hates the Indigo Girls, but was in town. He did not hand out the bogus cash. DNA analysis of the funny money supports this. Mark Eubank is a rabid Indigo Girls fan. He too denies handing out the cash, though was at the shop, DNA evidence supports his claim. Jane B. Goode is on the Oregon state lacrosse junior high school championship team. She didn’t do it and has never even been to Utah. Cher went to the show, hated it, and wishes she had handed out the money. But she didn’t.