Time, Inc. v. Hill
Encyclopedia
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374
(1967) is a United States Supreme Court case
involving issues of privacy
as discussed in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
and principles of freedom of speech
.
with their five children in 1952, when they were taken hostage in their own house by three escaped convicts. During the ordeal, the family members were treated with dignity by the hostage-takers. The family members were held hostage for 19 hours. The three criminals were apprehended after leaving the Hills' home, and the incident received a great deal of media attention. Mrs. Hill did not appreciate the media focus, and the family relocated to Connecticut
in order to seek out a lifestyle out of the limelight.
Author Joseph Hayes
wrote a novel published in 1953, The Desperate Hours, which was influenced by the ordeal experienced by the Hill family. The novel by Hays went on to become a best-seller. In 1954, the Broadway theatre
production of the play The Desperate Hours
debuted, which depicted a hostage incident similar to that experienced by the Hill family. However, in The Desperate Hours the scenario was changed from the Hill's actual experiences, to a fictional portrayal of a family victimized by threats of sexual abuse and other violent acts. The setting
for the play was Indianapolis, Indiana
.
Life
magazine published an article on the debut of The Desperate Hours on Broadway, and included pictures of the actors in the prior residence of the Hills in the Whitemarsh suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
. In the article, The Desperate Hours was characterized as a "reenactment" of the ordeal experienced by the Hill family. The Life magazine piece wrote that the photographed actors from the play were pictured in "the actual house where the Hills were besieged." Mrs. Hill experienced a mental breakdown
after the piece was published, and James Hill stated he was unable to comprehend why the magazine did not fact check the article through communication with the family.
against the magazine's publisher, Time, Inc. The suit asserted Life had violated privacy law
in the state, by conflating the Hill family with fictional events which had not actually occurred. The legal argument drew upon the notion of false light
as related to privacy law. Subsequent to an initial ruling against Life magazine, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
remanded the case for a new trial. After litigation through the court system in New York, a decision was found in favor of the plaintiff
, with damages awarded of US$
30,000.
Time, Inc. appealed the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Hill family position was argued by lawyer Richard Nixon
, who later became the President of the United States
. The position of Life magazine was argued before the Court by attorney Harold R. Medina, Jr. (son of U.S. federal judge Harold Medina
). In his opening argument he asserted that the privacy law in question in New York was unconstitutional, due to its broadness and for punitively impacting the press for publishing factual information. As a secondary argument, Medina put forth the notion that the prior ruling in the case was inappropriate because the jury was allowed to determine liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. He put forth the potential for a lawsuit against the press for a simple unintentional error, "It comes down to if you treat it on a mistake basis, on truth or falsity, what has happened to the law of libel? You don't need the law of libel any more and the safeguards. It is much easier to sue for violation of your right of privacy. But all the defenses that have been set up in the libel law disappear."
Regarding his preparation for the case, Nixon remarked to The New York Times
journalist Fred Graham, "I locked myself up in my office for two weeks. No phone calls. No interruptions. It takes a tremendous amount of concentration." Graham later wrote of Nixon's argumentation, "Whatever the peculiarities of Nixon's preparation, his performance before the Court proved sound and workman-like, well within the bounds of effective oral advoacy." Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy, and therefore freedom of the press
is not impacted by the privacy law. His essential premise put forth the notion that the "fictionalization" aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
wrote a draft opinion, but it was not published by the Court.
After the 1985 publication of Schwartz's book revealed the initial draft opinion of the Court in the case, former President Richard Nixon requested his prior White House Counsel
Leonard Garment
to investigate the matter. Garment had previously worked with Nixon as his legal partner, and assisted him during the Time, Inc. v. Hill case. Garment contributed an article to The New Yorker
which reported on the research undertaken by Nixon before each of the arguments in the case. He recounted Nixon's response after hearing of the verdict of the Court, "I always knew I wouldn't be permitted to win a big appeal against the press." Garment emphasized a comment from the dissent opinion written by Justice Harlan, which warned undesired media attention imparted "severe risk of irremediable harm ... [to] individuals exposed to it and powerless to protect themselves against it."
Following the first argument before the Court, justices changed their opinions about the matter, and Justice Hugo Black
wrote in a memo to his fellow justices, "After mature reflection, I am unable to recall any prior case in this Court that offers a greater threat to freedom of speech and press than this one does." Justice Black emphasized that though the media makes mistakes at times in its reporting, requiring press organizations to pay out for claims which were not libel related to inaccuracies which did not hurt individuals' reputation, would engender a situation of self-censorship
. A subsequent argument was ordered, and the majority opinion shifted since the initial draft opinion.
In his reply to Medina's argumentation, Nixon stated, "It is our contention that in this case it was argued by the plaintiff, it was established by the evidence, it was charged by the court, it was found by the jury, and it was held by the courts of New York in their appeals courts, that Life magazine lied, and that Life magazine knew that it lied. That is the proposition that I content for here."
However, the trial judge in the initial case did not provide the jury with an instruction that it had to provide an opinion of recklessness or willful inaccuracy on the part of Life magazine in order to yield a decision in favor of the plaintiff. Medina concluded the reargument period by emphasizing his view that in case it was determined by the Court that evidence showed the Life magazine staff was aware of the inaccuracy of the article in question, this lack of jury instruction was crucial. Medina said that due to this failure to inform the jury of a requirement to find willful inaccuracy on the part of Life magazine, "I still think I am entitled to win."
In January 1967, the Court determined in a 5-4 decision in favor of Time, Inc. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.
wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Brennan had previously written the majority opinion in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
in 1964; that case ruled individual officials who were publicly known were not able to obtain claims for inaccurate media coverage except in the case of reckless or willfull reporting of said inaccuracies. In this case, Justice Brennan utilized a similar test to the matter at hand. He permitted that Life could have a fresh trial where it could be determined whether or not the magazine's reporting was reckless or willfully inaccurate. Justice Brennan wrote about the balance between freedom of speech and exposure to public view:
The majority opinion held that states cannot judge in favor of plaintiffs "to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disgregard of the truth." This decision had the impact of elaborating on the "actual malice" standard of the Court's prior holding in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
, to also include cases involving false light.
A dissent written by Justice Fortas was joined by Justice Tom C. Clark
as well as Chief Justice Earl Warren
. In addition to Justice Fortas, Justice John Marshall Harlan II
wrote another dissent. Justice Harlan observed that as Hill was not a public individual, he was unable to obtain significant viewership for a potential response. He pointed out that this created a problem of "unchallengable untruth", and stated a necessity would have been to request Hill prove negligence on the part of Life magazine's editorship in their falsehoods, as opposed to the more stringent test of proving that the inaccuracy was actually reckless or willful.
examined the case, and noted, "Using someone's likeness without permission has developed as one of the four branches of privacy law. A second is false light privacy, exemplified by the Hill case: putting someone in a false light by, for example, fictionalizing a story about him or her."
Authors Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky and R. George Wright write in their book Freedom of the Press: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, "... the Supreme Court requires proof of falsity and fault in all defamation cases involving matters of public concern, although the requisite fault depends on the status of the plaintiff. If plaintiffs were able to avoid these requirements simply by choosing to sue for false light rather than defamation, it would encourage an 'end run' around the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court foresaw and partially prevented this problem in its first false light case, Time, Inc. v. Hill." Regarding the rationale of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case, the authors noted, "The Court's reasoning was parallel to the reasoning being developed in defamation cases: Errors are inevitable in free debate on matters of public interest, and the press must have breathing space to protect it from liability for such 'inevitable' errors."
Writing as a contributor to A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court, Fred Graham commented on the positions of Time, Inc. in its argumentation before the Court. Graham noted, "Underlying both defenses was the argument that if this judgment was not unconstitutional, then persons who feel they have been defamed can perform an end run around the defenses established in New York Times v. Sullivan by suing for a violation of privacy."
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1967) is a United States Supreme Court case
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
involving issues of privacy
Privacy
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively...
as discussed in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
and principles of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used...
.
Background
James Hill and his wife lived in Whitemarsh Township, PennsylvaniaWhitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania
Whitemarsh Township is a Home Rule Municipality in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, United States. However, it maintains its former classification of "Township" in its official name. The population was 17,349 at the 2010 census.-History:...
with their five children in 1952, when they were taken hostage in their own house by three escaped convicts. During the ordeal, the family members were treated with dignity by the hostage-takers. The family members were held hostage for 19 hours. The three criminals were apprehended after leaving the Hills' home, and the incident received a great deal of media attention. Mrs. Hill did not appreciate the media focus, and the family relocated to Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States. It is bordered by Rhode Island to the east, Massachusetts to the north, and the state of New York to the west and the south .Connecticut is named for the Connecticut River, the major U.S. river that approximately...
in order to seek out a lifestyle out of the limelight.
Author Joseph Hayes
Joseph Hayes
Joseph Hayes was an American author and playwright, born in Indianapolis, Indiana. When he was thirteen, he entered a Benedictine monastery, staying there for two years. He graduated from Indiana University....
wrote a novel published in 1953, The Desperate Hours, which was influenced by the ordeal experienced by the Hill family. The novel by Hays went on to become a best-seller. In 1954, the Broadway theatre
Broadway theatre
Broadway theatre, commonly called simply Broadway, refers to theatrical performances presented in one of the 40 professional theatres with 500 or more seats located in the Theatre District centered along Broadway, and in Lincoln Center, in Manhattan in New York City...
production of the play The Desperate Hours
The Desperate Hours (play)
The Desperate Hours is a 1955 play by Joseph Hayes, based on his 1954 thriller novel of the same title. The story, about three escaped convicts, was the basis for the films The Desperate Hours in 1955 and Desperate Hours in 1990....
debuted, which depicted a hostage incident similar to that experienced by the Hill family. However, in The Desperate Hours the scenario was changed from the Hill's actual experiences, to a fictional portrayal of a family victimized by threats of sexual abuse and other violent acts. The setting
Setting (fiction)
In fiction, setting includes the time, location, and everything in which a story takes place, and initiates the main backdrop and mood for a story. Setting has been referred to as story world or milieu to include a context beyond the immediate surroundings of the story. Elements of setting may...
for the play was Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis is the capital of the U.S. state of Indiana, and the county seat of Marion County, Indiana. As of the 2010 United States Census, the city's population is 839,489. It is by far Indiana's largest city and, as of the 2010 U.S...
.
Life
Life (magazine)
Life generally refers to three American magazines:*A humor and general interest magazine published from 1883 to 1936. Time founder Henry Luce bought the magazine in 1936 solely so that he could acquire the rights to its name....
magazine published an article on the debut of The Desperate Hours on Broadway, and included pictures of the actors in the prior residence of the Hills in the Whitemarsh suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia is the largest city in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the county seat of Philadelphia County, with which it is coterminous. The city is located in the Northeastern United States along the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. It is the fifth-most-populous city in the United States,...
. In the article, The Desperate Hours was characterized as a "reenactment" of the ordeal experienced by the Hill family. The Life magazine piece wrote that the photographed actors from the play were pictured in "the actual house where the Hills were besieged." Mrs. Hill experienced a mental breakdown
Mental breakdown
Mental breakdown is a non-medical term used to describe an acute, time-limited phase of a specific disorder that presents primarily with features of depression or anxiety.-Definition:...
after the piece was published, and James Hill stated he was unable to comprehend why the magazine did not fact check the article through communication with the family.
Prior litigation
James Hill filed suit in New YorkNew York
New York is a state in the Northeastern region of the United States. It is the nation's third most populous state. New York is bordered by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the south, and by Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont to the east...
against the magazine's publisher, Time, Inc. The suit asserted Life had violated privacy law
Privacy law
Privacy law refers to the laws which deal with the regulation of personal information about individuals which can be collected by governments and other public as well as private organizations and its storage and use....
in the state, by conflating the Hill family with fictional events which had not actually occurred. The legal argument drew upon the notion of false light
False light
False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First...
as related to privacy law. Subsequent to an initial ruling against Life magazine, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division is the intermediate appellate court in New York State. The Appellate Division is composed of four departments .*The First Department covers the Bronx The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division is the intermediate...
remanded the case for a new trial. After litigation through the court system in New York, a decision was found in favor of the plaintiff
Plaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
, with damages awarded of US$
United States dollar
The United States dollar , also referred to as the American dollar, is the official currency of the United States of America. It is divided into 100 smaller units called cents or pennies....
30,000.
Argument
Richard Nixon
Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under...
, who later became the President of the United States
President of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
. The position of Life magazine was argued before the Court by attorney Harold R. Medina, Jr. (son of U.S. federal judge Harold Medina
Harold Medina
Harold Raymond Medina, Sr. was an American lawyer, teacher and judge who is most noted for hearing landmark cases of conspiracy and treason.Medina died in 1990 at the age of 102.- Early life :...
). In his opening argument he asserted that the privacy law in question in New York was unconstitutional, due to its broadness and for punitively impacting the press for publishing factual information. As a secondary argument, Medina put forth the notion that the prior ruling in the case was inappropriate because the jury was allowed to determine liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. He put forth the potential for a lawsuit against the press for a simple unintentional error, "It comes down to if you treat it on a mistake basis, on truth or falsity, what has happened to the law of libel? You don't need the law of libel any more and the safeguards. It is much easier to sue for violation of your right of privacy. But all the defenses that have been set up in the libel law disappear."
Regarding his preparation for the case, Nixon remarked to The New York Times
The New York Times
The New York Times is an American daily newspaper founded and continuously published in New York City since 1851. The New York Times has won 106 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any news organization...
journalist Fred Graham, "I locked myself up in my office for two weeks. No phone calls. No interruptions. It takes a tremendous amount of concentration." Graham later wrote of Nixon's argumentation, "Whatever the peculiarities of Nixon's preparation, his performance before the Court proved sound and workman-like, well within the bounds of effective oral advoacy." Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy, and therefore freedom of the press
Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials...
is not impacted by the privacy law. His essential premise put forth the notion that the "fictionalization" aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
Unpublished draft opinion
In his 1985 book The Unpublished Opinions of the Warren Court, author Bernard Schwartz revealed that an initial conference had resulted in votes of 6 to 3 to affirm the judgment in favor of the Hill family. Justice Abe FortasAbe Fortas
Abraham Fortas was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice from 1965 to 1969. Originally from Tennessee, Fortas became a law professor at Yale, and subsequently advised the Securities and Exchange Commission. He then worked at the Interior Department under Franklin D...
wrote a draft opinion, but it was not published by the Court.
After the 1985 publication of Schwartz's book revealed the initial draft opinion of the Court in the case, former President Richard Nixon requested his prior White House Counsel
White House Counsel
The White House Counsel is a staff appointee of the President of the United States.-Role:The Counsel's role is to advise the President on all legal issues concerning the President and the White House...
Leonard Garment
Leonard Garment
Leonard Garment was acting Special Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon for the last two years of his presidency.Garment was born in Brooklyn, New York. In 1949, Garment joined the law firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd. He became the head of litigation and a partner in the late fifties...
to investigate the matter. Garment had previously worked with Nixon as his legal partner, and assisted him during the Time, Inc. v. Hill case. Garment contributed an article to The New Yorker
The New Yorker
The New Yorker is an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons and poetry published by Condé Nast...
which reported on the research undertaken by Nixon before each of the arguments in the case. He recounted Nixon's response after hearing of the verdict of the Court, "I always knew I wouldn't be permitted to win a big appeal against the press." Garment emphasized a comment from the dissent opinion written by Justice Harlan, which warned undesired media attention imparted "severe risk of irremediable harm ... [to] individuals exposed to it and powerless to protect themselves against it."
Following the first argument before the Court, justices changed their opinions about the matter, and Justice Hugo Black
Hugo Black
Hugo Lafayette Black was an American politician and jurist. A member of the Democratic Party, Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate from 1927 to 1937, and served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1937 to 1971. Black was nominated to the Supreme...
wrote in a memo to his fellow justices, "After mature reflection, I am unable to recall any prior case in this Court that offers a greater threat to freedom of speech and press than this one does." Justice Black emphasized that though the media makes mistakes at times in its reporting, requiring press organizations to pay out for claims which were not libel related to inaccuracies which did not hurt individuals' reputation, would engender a situation of self-censorship
Self-censorship
Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work , out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities of others, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority...
. A subsequent argument was ordered, and the majority opinion shifted since the initial draft opinion.
Reargument
A second argument before the Court took place in October 1966. Medina requested the Court declare the privacy law in question unconstitutional, because, "[i]n this field of privacy, I merely suggest that when it is nondefamatory and when you are talking about a public fact, we should have the protection that the fellow who comes in to sue us must prove both falsity and knowledge of falsity, or recklessness, and that this is a minimum, because, mind you, this article here, the dissent in the appelate division, found it was an informative presentation of legitimate news."In his reply to Medina's argumentation, Nixon stated, "It is our contention that in this case it was argued by the plaintiff, it was established by the evidence, it was charged by the court, it was found by the jury, and it was held by the courts of New York in their appeals courts, that Life magazine lied, and that Life magazine knew that it lied. That is the proposition that I content for here."
However, the trial judge in the initial case did not provide the jury with an instruction that it had to provide an opinion of recklessness or willful inaccuracy on the part of Life magazine in order to yield a decision in favor of the plaintiff. Medina concluded the reargument period by emphasizing his view that in case it was determined by the Court that evidence showed the Life magazine staff was aware of the inaccuracy of the article in question, this lack of jury instruction was crucial. Medina said that due to this failure to inform the jury of a requirement to find willful inaccuracy on the part of Life magazine, "I still think I am entitled to win."
Decision
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Brennan had previously written the majority opinion in the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the...
in 1964; that case ruled individual officials who were publicly known were not able to obtain claims for inaccurate media coverage except in the case of reckless or willfull reporting of said inaccuracies. In this case, Justice Brennan utilized a similar test to the matter at hand. He permitted that Life could have a fresh trial where it could be determined whether or not the magazine's reporting was reckless or willfully inaccurate. Justice Brennan wrote about the balance between freedom of speech and exposure to public view:
The guarantees for speech and press are not the preserve of political expression or comment upon public affairs, essential as those are to healthy government. One need only pick up any newspaper or magazine to comprehend the vast range of published matter which exposes persons to public view, both private citizens and public officials. Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and press.
The majority opinion held that states cannot judge in favor of plaintiffs "to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disgregard of the truth." This decision had the impact of elaborating on the "actual malice" standard of the Court's prior holding in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the...
, to also include cases involving false light.
A dissent written by Justice Fortas was joined by Justice Tom C. Clark
Tom C. Clark
Thomas Campbell Clark was United States Attorney General from 1945 to 1949 and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States .- Early life and career :...
as well as Chief Justice Earl Warren
Earl Warren
Earl Warren was the 14th Chief Justice of the United States.He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring...
. In addition to Justice Fortas, Justice John Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1971. His namesake was his grandfather John Marshall Harlan, another associate justice who served from 1877 to 1911.Harlan was a student at Upper Canada College and Appleby College and...
wrote another dissent. Justice Harlan observed that as Hill was not a public individual, he was unable to obtain significant viewership for a potential response. He pointed out that this created a problem of "unchallengable untruth", and stated a necessity would have been to request Hill prove negligence on the part of Life magazine's editorship in their falsehoods, as opposed to the more stringent test of proving that the inaccuracy was actually reckless or willful.
Analysis
In his book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, author Anthony LewisAnthony Lewis
Anthony Lewis is a prominent liberal intellectual, writing for The New York Times op-ed page and The New York Review of Books, among other publications. He was previously a columnist for the Times . Before that he was London bureau chief , Washington, D.C...
examined the case, and noted, "Using someone's likeness without permission has developed as one of the four branches of privacy law. A second is false light privacy, exemplified by the Hill case: putting someone in a false light by, for example, fictionalizing a story about him or her."
Authors Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky and R. George Wright write in their book Freedom of the Press: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, "... the Supreme Court requires proof of falsity and fault in all defamation cases involving matters of public concern, although the requisite fault depends on the status of the plaintiff. If plaintiffs were able to avoid these requirements simply by choosing to sue for false light rather than defamation, it would encourage an 'end run' around the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court foresaw and partially prevented this problem in its first false light case, Time, Inc. v. Hill." Regarding the rationale of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case, the authors noted, "The Court's reasoning was parallel to the reasoning being developed in defamation cases: Errors are inevitable in free debate on matters of public interest, and the press must have breathing space to protect it from liability for such 'inevitable' errors."
Writing as a contributor to A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court, Fred Graham commented on the positions of Time, Inc. in its argumentation before the Court. Graham noted, "Underlying both defenses was the argument that if this judgment was not unconstitutional, then persons who feel they have been defamed can perform an end run around the defenses established in New York Times v. Sullivan by suing for a violation of privacy."
See also
- Alien and Sedition ActsAlien and Sedition ActsThe Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution's reign of terror and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams...
- Civil liberties in the United States
- Censorship in the United StatesCensorship in the United StatesIn general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or other public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution....
- Freedom of speech in the United StatesFreedom of speech in the United StatesFreedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws, with the exception of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words, as well as harassment, privileged...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385
- Media transparencyMedia transparencyMedia transparency is the concept of determining how and why information is conveyed through various means.As used in the humanities,the topic of media transparency implies openness and accountability...
- Tory v. CochranTory v. CochranTory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 , is a United States Supreme Court case involving libel. The case began in California with Johnnie Cochran, the famed attorney who represented O.J. Simpson, suing his former client Ulysses Tory for libel and invasion of privacy...
- Westmoreland v. CBSWestmoreland v. CBSWestmoreland v. CBS was a $120 million libel suit brought by former U.S. Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland against CBS Television for the televising of a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception, narrated by the investigative reporter, Mike Wallace. It was shown...