Libel Seminar by shuifanglj

VIEWS: 15 PAGES: 47

									Libel Seminar
 Daniel P. Byron, Margaret C. Christensen
            & Jared S. Sunday

          Bingham McHale LLP
           2700 Market Tower
          10 West Market Street
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
             (317) 635-8900
        www.binghammchale.com
       I. Rationale & Definition
A.   Libel law strikes a balance between our “profound
     national commitment to the principal that debate
     on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and
     wide-open” (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376
     U.S. 254, 270 (1964)) and the protection of
     reputation, “our basic concept of the essential
     dignity and worth of every human being” (Gertz v.
     Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 341 (1974)).
       I. Rationale & Definition
B. Elements - what a libel plaintiff must prove to win
• Publication of a false statement of fact
• “Of and concerning” the plaintiff
• Injurious to the plaintiff ’s reputation
• Made with requisite degree of fault
              II. The Elements
A. Falsity
  1. Historically, and in many other countries, it was
     and is the defendant’s burden to prove truth as a
     defense in a libel action. In U.S., libel plaintiff
     must prove falsity. Significant difference.
   2. Statement only has to be substantially true. So
      long as gist or sting is correct, statement
      containing minor error not defamatory.
              II. The Elements
A. Falsity
  3. Example: Masson v. New Yorker Magazine 501
     U.S. 496 (1991)
     •   Supreme Court held that only material alteration in
         quotation can give rise to libel action. Material
         alteration is one that changes meaning.
     •   Another way to make the same point: only quotations
         that made Masson look worse than concededly
         accurate quotations can give rise to libel action.
     •   This is instance of law offering more protection than
         standards of journalistic ethics.
               II. The Elements
A. Falsity
  4. Similar concept: incremental harm doctrine.
      •   Where there are true statements accompanying a false
          one, and the “incremental harm” done by the falsity is
          minor as compared to the true statements then no true
          libel. Sack on Defamation, Third Edition § 2.4.18
          (2009).
   5. Truth/falsity often hard to prove.
      •   Time passes, memories fade, witnesses unavailable.
                     II. The Elements
A.    Falsity
     6.   Example: Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 1170
          (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
          •   CBS accused General William Westmoreland conspiring to
              suppress enemy troop strength estimates in Vietnam.
          •   At a cost of $6 million, the parties litigated the “truth” of this
              thesis and of many other issues related to the Vietnam war.
          •   Case settled before it went to the jury, but most jurors agreed that
              evidence as to truth of the statements was inconclusive. How
              could it not be?
                    II. The Elements
B.     Statement of Fact
     1. Must be a factual misstatement, i.e., not opinion.
         Opinion statements are not libelous. So what is a
         statement of opinion?
        a.   Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
             • Sports columnist writes that wrestling coach’s trial testimony
                seemed quite different from testimony before an athletic association.
                Sounds like an opinion.
             • Milkovich sues on theory that this was an accusation of perjury.
             • Supreme Court rejects opinion defense here because accusation was
                provably true or false by comparing two sets of transcripts of
                testimony.
             • Supreme Court emphasizes that statements probably not true –
                “imaginative expression,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” “loose, figurative,
                or hyperbolic language” -- are protected and not libelous.
                  II. The Elements
B.    Statement of Fact
     2. Key: Give readers all underlying facts so they may
        draw their own conclusions. Don’t imply you know
        more than you’re saying.
     3. Caution: No automatic protection by casting as “I
        believe” or “It’s my opinion that”
     4. Case Law following Milkovich favors a loosening of
        the opinion standard. There likely is protection if you
        state “it is my pure opinion.”
        •   Lieberman v. Fieger, 338 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2003)
        •   Phantom Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publications, 953 F.2d 724
            (1st Cir. 1992)
                 II. The Elements
B.     Statement of Fact
     5. Rhetorical Hyperbole/Epithets
        •   Exaggerated speech – venting of emotion
        •   Abusive words or phrases
        •   Rationale – words are meant in a figurative sense and
            not literally
        •   Imaginative use of a word
        •   All of this type of speech is outside the law of libel
        •   Examples:
            o Calling a man “rude”
            o Calling a person a “bigot” or a “racist”
             II. The Elements
C. Of and Concerning
  1. Need not be individual; companies have
     reputations, too.
  2. Need not identify individual by name.
  3. Group libel: if group sufficiently large (e.g., all
     lawyers) no individual member can sue. Rule of
     thumb: 25 or more.
                 II. The Elements
C. Of and Concerning
4. Example: Mario’s Enterprises v. Morton-Norwich, 6
   Med. L. Rptr. 1651 (W.D. Ky. 1980)
•   Pepto-Bismol’s TV ad features a fireman in severe distress,
    moaning that he can’t tell whether his four-alarm fire was
    caused by a two-alarm fire or Mario’s three-alarm meatballs.
•   The plaintiff owns a chain of restaurants called “Mario’s”.
•   Case dismissed on “of and concerning” grounds; the court
    notes that there are at least 391 restaurants in the U.S. called
    Mario’s.
                II. The Elements
C. Of and Concerning
5. Example: Livingston v. Murray, 20 Med. L. Reptr.
   1824 (Penn. Super. Ct. 1992)
•   University president, in story about new athletic director
    quoted as saying: “Now we have an athletic director who has
    respect around the country.”
•   Old athletic director sues. Even though he’s not mentioned by
    name – the “of and concerning” requirement is met.
•   Case dismissed on other grounds (president’s statement is
    nondefamatory opinion).
               II. The Elements
D. Injury to Plaintiff ’s Reputation
1. Not all false statements hurt reputation. Standard:
   did it lower the plaintiff ’s reputation in the
   community?
2. Evolving nature of standard. It was, in the 1950s,
   held defamatory to call a white person black… not
   today. Query: is it defamatory today to call a straight
   person “gay”? Probably not.
                             II. The Elements
D. Injury to Plaintiff ’s Reputation
3. Dangerous Words – Libel Per Se
•   The dangerous words of journalism – Don’t use them
•   Case law gives us many examples of words found to be defamatory if
    false
o   Prostitute – yes
o   Criminal – yes
o   Skank – no
o   Gay – today, no
o   Aids or HIV – yes
o   Politician – no
o   Bankrupt – yes
o   Bi-sexual – no
•   Example: “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”
o   Radio Talk Show sued by a failed contestant for publication of these words about her appearance on the
    TV show. Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting, 97 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2003).
   “chicken butt” – “local loser” – “jilted” – “big skank”
   Stated by radio commentators after the contestant refused to go on their talk show
   All held not to be defamatory
             And finally this:

       He is a “loser wannabe lawyer” – no
It does not apparently harm your reputation to be
          called a “loser wannabe lawyer”

4. Need not show direct monetary loss if libel
 per se.
                  II. The Elements
E. Fault
  1.   Libel law protects the innocent mistake – no strict liability.
  2.   Plus in Indiana and a few other states actual malice must be proven.
  3.   In most other states must only prove negligence if a private figure is
       allegedly defamed. Actual malice is a required element of proof in
       all other states (NY –Wash D.C. – Illinois for example) only if the
       plaintiff is a public figure or a limited purpose public figure.
  4.    Actual Malice
       • Does not mean proof of ill-will or spite
       • Does mean intentionally giving a false story or fact or publishing
           a false story or fact with reckless disregard
       • So here is the rub. When is a story published with reckless
           disregard as to its truth?
                   II. The Elements
E. Fault
 5.   Reckless disregard has a defined meaning in the law. Courts hold that actual
      malice is proven if the reporter or publisher entertained a serious doubt about
      the truth of the story but published anyway.
 6.   Failure to investigate fully a story falls short of proving actual malice.
  •   St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968); Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l
      Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1089 (3d Cir. 1985).
 7.   In case of private figure, false statement must be of a kind that a reasonable
      person would not have made. This is a negligence standard
 8.   In case of public official or public figure, false statement must be published
      with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge of falsity or serious doubts about the
      truth of the statements.
 9.   Journalists should not rely on the legal distinction between public and
      private figures.
                         II. The Elements
E. Fault
10. Example:        Sharon v. Time, Inc., 83 Civ. 4660(ADS) (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).

 • Time reported that a secret appendix to an official inquiry into a massacre at the Sabra and
   Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon charged General Ariel Sharon with encouraging the parties
   responsible for the massacre.
 • Time had not seen appendix and relied on partial confirmation by confidential source; Time
   never asked source the ultimate question of whether the appendix said what Time suspected.
 • Judge indicated that this sort of “conscious avoidance” may show actual malice.
 • Judge obtained secret appendix. It didn't say what Time said it said.
 • Jury answered a questionnaire in connection with verdict. It found that Time's statement was
   false and that the statement injured Sharon's reputation. But it found that Time had acted
   without actual malice. Result: no liability.
 • In very unusual procedure, the jury foreman read a statement criticizing Time for having
   "acted negligently and carelessly in reporting and verifying the information."
           III. Unique Defenses
A. Anti-SLAPP Statutes
  1. A new defense to libel is one enacted by statute
     and entitled anti-SLAPP.
   2. SLAPP means “Strategic Lawsuits Against
      Public Participation.”
   3. The defense is designed to eliminate meritless
      libel suits aimed at silencing a person’s right to
      speak out about a matter of public interest. If the
      defense is successful you can recover your
      reasonable legal fees. A “person” also means a
      corporation or the media.
             III. Unique Defenses
A. Anti-SLAPP Statutes
  1. These statutes were enacted in response to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill
     as a result of large private interests suing citizens who spoke out
     against the debacle at public hearings etc.
  2. Indiana Anti-SLAPP statute can be found at Ind. Code §§ 34.7.7.1 et
     seq. It has been upheld and attorney fees awarded in cases like
     Poulard v. Lauth, 793 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) and more
     recently in Canarx v. LIN-TV Corp et al, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
     42236, Case No. 1:07-cv-01482-LJM-JMS (U.S. So. D. Ind. Sept. 3,
     2008).
  3. The defense provides an early testing of the libel case by a motion to
     dismiss if the alleged false statements are (1) a statement in furtherance
     of your right of free speech in connection with an issue of public
     interest and (2) made in good faith and with a reasonable basis in law
     and fact. Ind. Code § 34-7-7-1. If won then your reasonable legal
     fees are recoverable.
             III. Unique Defenses
B. Fair and accurate reports of official proceedings.
  1.   Fair Report Privilege. Absolute privilege because of importance of
       ensuring freedom of expression in these forums.
            Proceedings, and relevant pleadings and reports from:
           • committees or subcommittees of both houses of Congress and their
             equivalents at the state level; and
           • judicial and administrative proceedings;
           • written records that reflect government action such as arrest warrants, records
             filed in state and federal courts, and minutes of meetings of public bodies.
  2.   Applies to town meetings, court proceedings, etc.
           • Police reports? Yes, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611
           • Pleadings filed in court
  3.   Key is accuracy and specific attribution in the published report.
  4.   Whenever possible, check the documentation or attend the
       hearing yourself.
                III. Unique Defenses
C. Libel proof plaintiff doctrine
1. Some people have reputations so low that nothing could be done to lower
   them further. If Court determines that a plaintiff is libel proof, then no
   injury and thus no libel regardless of the false statements made about him.
2. Example: Ray v. Time, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 618 (W.D. Tenn. 1976).
  • Plaintiff killed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Time Magazine and others alleged that he was a "narcotics addict and
    peddler" and a participant in a London bank robbery.
  • Court held that Ray was libel-proof, that is, nothing that could be said
    about him could further lower his reputation.
3. The doctrine has been applied to habitual criminals. Cerasani v. Sony
   Corp., 991 F. Supp 343 (S.D. N.Y. 1998) where a mobster’s past record
   was sufficient to find him libel proof.
          III. Unique Defenses
D. Death

1. Death of plaintiff ends libel actions
2. The tort of libel is personal and does not
   survive a person’s death
           III. Unique Defenses
E. Two-Year Statute of Limitations
1. Plaintiff must file his or her lawsuit within two years
   in Indiana and most states. Some states have a one
   year statute.
2. Can you agree to extend the statute of limitations?
   Yes and this is sometimes done for purposes of
   negotiating settlement.
3. But, if a story is complained about, you will normally
   receive a call within two weeks.
             IV. Problem Areas
A. Republication
1. Important to note . . . . It's not enough to quote
   someone accurately. We are on the hook for substance
   of the quote as well. (Recall the four elements of libel
   -- no exception for quotations
   of others).
2. Rumors: Same rule. If you report a rumor you are on
   the hook for what is stated.
          IV. Problem Areas
B. Advertisement and Letters to the Editor
• Same rules apply. We are on the hook for
  advertisements.
• New York Times v. Sullivan began as an
  advertisement in The Times.
           IV. Problem Areas
C. Retraction
• Good journalistic practice. It's likely to help
  lower damages but doesn't guarantee legal
  protection. In Indiana it removes the element
  of punitive damages.
• There is generally no automatic protection
  because we report both sides in a controversy.
  But a possible defense under what is called the
  “neutral reporting privilege.”
              IV. Problem Areas
D. Photographs
  1. Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper, 5 Med. L. Rptr.
   1940 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
     • Boston Globe publishes picture of unemployment line.
     • Caption: "Jobless line up for their checks."
     • Plaintiff was standing in line as an interpreter for a friend.
     • Case dismissed.
     • Did not single plaintiff out.
     • Unreasonable to ask paper to do more; would result in undue self-
       censorship.
     • Query whether result would be the same if the caption was
       inflammatory, e.g., "A bunch of welfare cheats".
         IV. Problem Areas
E. Headlines

 1.   Story can be correct but there may still
      be liability if headline is inaccurate.
                      IV. Problem Areas
E. Headlines
2. Journal-Gazette Co. Inc. v. Bandido’s 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. S. Ct. 1999)
 • Restaurant owner whose business had been temporarily shut down by the county health
   department which found numerous violations during an inspection filed a libel lawsuit against
   newspaper that wrote an accurate story about the restaurant's inspection failure, but made an
   error in the headline.
 • The headline indicated the inspection found evidence of rats in the restaurant. The inspection
    actually found rodent droppings. The headline writer equated rodent with rat without realizing
    that rodent also included mice.
 • Story correct but headline was wrong.
 • Where the alleged defamation addressed a subject of public concern, the actual malice
   standard was required under Indiana Law.
 • Indiana Supreme Court affirmed appellate court and found that plaintiff did not produce clear
   and convincing evidence of actual malice. The use of the word "rats" in the headline rather
   than "rodents" did not indicate actual malice because defendant was not shown to have known
   of the inaccuracy before publication.
             IV. Problem Areas
F. Satire, Parody and Humor
1. No defamation if humor, comment etc. is capable of
   only a non-defamatory meaning.
2. If it is understood by a reasonable person as being
   parody, satire or humor, then is not believed to be
   factual.
3. Cases on point are Salek v. Passaic Collegiate School,
   25 N.J. Super. 355, 605 A.2d 276 (App. 1992);
   Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234, 1244 (Ind. Ct.
   App. 2007)
             IV. Problem Areas
G. Confidential Sources
  1. Most States including Indiana have so-called
     “shield” laws which protect publishers and
     reporters from revealing their sources.
  2. Indiana has a very strong, absolute, unconditional
     privilege that protects all sources including non-
     confidential sources. Ind. Stat. §§ 34-46-4-1 et
         seq.
   3. The statute covers all periodicals including
      business journals.
            IV. Problem Areas
G. Confidential Sources
   4. The statute protects against all state and local
      subpoenas or requests, BUT does not protect
      against federal subpoenas or requests.
   5. A limited federal privilege statute is working its
      way through Congress and will likely be passed
      reasonably soon. Obama has promised to sign
      the bill when passed.
   6. “The Free Flow of Information Act” is sponsored
      by Ind. Senator Lugar and Ind. Congressman
      Mike Pence.
                IV. Problem Areas
G. Confidential Sources
  7.   It allows for protection against federal subpoenas and
       requests except where necessary to prevent imminent harm to national
       security (or) if the requested disclosure clearly outweighs the public
       interest in free flow of information.
  8.   The bill was proposed in 2005 because a NY Times reporter, Judith
       Miller, was held in jail for 85 days for refusing to reveal the identity
       of her then confidential informant, Scooter Libbey. Only because
       Scooter agreed to waive confidentiality, did she agree to testify,
       thereby ending her imprisonment and the issue before the court.
  9.   Thus, the privilege can be waived by the person providing the
       confidential information.
             IV. Problem Areas
G. Confidential Sources
  10. Rule – Never make a promise of absolute
      confidentiality. Else, you could be sued for
      breach of contract if you later are required to
      reveal the source by a court of law.
  11. Problem – If you are sued on a story, you may
      need to reveal your sources in order to convince a
      jury or judge that the plaintiff has no case for
      defamation.
          IV. Problem Areas
H. Anonymous Sources

 1. View with skepticism

 2. Always confirm from other sources or documents
    any negative information obtained from an
    anonymous source.
               IV. Problem Areas
I. Innuendo
  1. May not say by innuendo what you would not say
  directly, e.g., Kenny Stabler's suit against The New
  York Times –
      • Article explored Stabler's connections with gamblers.
      • One paragraph stated that Stabler had been seen with a gambler on
        a Saturday night before a big game. The next paragraph reported
        that the Raiders lost to the spread at the next day's game.
      • Stabler claimed that he was libeled by implying that he purposely
        threw the game.
      • He withdrew the case after discovery.
            IV. Problem Areas
I. Innuendo
  2. Wayne Newton's suit against NBC
     • NBC reported that Newton had sought help from the
       mob and that Newton was trying to buy the Aladdin
       Hotel.
     • True so far as it goes. Story implied that he sought mob
       help to buy hotel and give mob a hidden interest. Not
       true. In fact, he sought mob help to respond to death
       threats against daughter.
     • Las Vegas jury awards him $18 million.
     • Ultimately reversed on appeal on actual malice grounds.
                 V. False Light
• A. This legal theory, is a kind of invasion of
  privacy, but really a variation on libel. As in libel,
  plaintiff must prove a false statement of fact “of and
  concerning” the plaintiff made with fault. Instead of
  injury to reputation, false light instead goes to the
  plaintiff’s personal feelings. And it requires proof of
  outrageous conduct as well as hurt feelings.
                V. False Light
• B. The legal theory has not been enthusiastically
  embraced by the courts and is not accepted in some
  jurisdictions. Sometimes added by a plaintiff as a
  second cause of action and it is usually dismissed
  with little discussion when the libel claim is
  dismissed.
                       V. False Light
C. Example:         Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing, 419 U.S. 245 (1974).

• Joe Eszterhas, who would go on to be a respected investigative journalist
  and successful screenwriter, wrote a Sunday Magazine piece for the
  Cleveland Plain Dealer in 1968. The story followed up on the family of a
  man killed in a bridge collapse nine months earlier.
• Eszterhas visited the widow's home. She wasn't home. He wrote: "Margaret
  Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are
  doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral.
  She is a proud woman. She says that after it happened, the people in town
  offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it."
• No question that these statements were at least partially false. No question
  that there was nothing defamatory about the statements. Because of the
  outrageousness of the conduct, however, and the distress caused to the
  widow, a jury award of damages on false light theory was upheld.
                      V. False Light
D. Example:       Nellie Mitchell v. Globe International Publishing Inc., 20
  Med. L. Rptr.'1925 (8th Cir. 1992)
 • Tabloid newspaper The Sun publishes picture - of 97-year-old Arkansas
   women with headline "Pregnancy forces granny to quit work at age 101."
 • She sues for defamation and false light (and not because she was said to
   be four years older than she was).
 • Newspaper's defense: everybody knows that we make this stuff up and
   everybody knows you can't get pregnant at that age.
 • Newspaper wins on defamation -- her reputation in community not
   lowered.
 • Newspaper loses $1.5 million on false light -- woman was distressed and
   their conduct was outrageous.
                  V. False Light
E. Bottom line on false light and other weird add-on
  torts (intentional infliction of emotional distress,
  tortuous interference, and violation of civil rights): if
  journalists' conduct is sufficiently outrageous, courts
  may concoct a remedy.
                    VI. Web-Sites
A. Web-Sites and Bloggers
  1.   Bloggers are always responsible for statements that they
       post on your web-sites.
  2.   Importantly, however, you as the owner of the web-site or
       as the service provider are basically exempt from liability
       so long as you do not edit or change the blogger’s
       comments.
  3.  Courts have so held pursuant to the terms of the Federal
      Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230
      Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 288
  (D. N.H. 2008); Barrett v. Intelisoft Multi-Media, Inc., 343 Ill.
  App. 3d 1184, 799 N.E. 2d 916, 279 Ill. Dec. 113 (2003).
                 VI. Web-Sites
A. Web-Sites and Bloggers
4. Nevertheless, you should monitor your web-sites and
   post guidelines to both discourage and eliminate
   offensive or obscene material.
5. Guidelines should advise bloggers that they are
   responsible for any liability resulting from the
   comments they post.
6. Also request that they refrain from posting anything
   that is defamatory, offensive or obscene.
               VI. Web-Sites
A. Web-Sites and Bloggers
 7. Advise too that you reserve the right to block any
    post that fails to meet your guidelines.
 8. Request the name and home address of
    the blogger.

								
To top