The end of New York Times v Sullivan: reflections on Masson v New Yorker Magazine
Article Abstract:
In Masson v New Yorker Magazine, the US Supreme Court was asked to decide a case whose outcome could end the protection against libel litigation that was established in New York Times v Sullivan. Janet Malcolm's series of stories about Jeffrey Masson utilized long sections enclosed in quotes, some of which Masson claimed were fabrications. The issue was what standard was to be used in deciding what constituted misrepresentation. The court's decision was that Malcolm's representation of Masson's words could lead a reasonable person to form an inaccurate opinion of what was actually said.
Publication Name: Supreme Court Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0081-9557
Year: 1991
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Dun & Bradstreet, Hepps and Milkovich: the lingering confusion in defamation law
Article Abstract:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., in allowing a defamation action based on a media defendant's opinion statements, continued to cloud what types of speech and speakers are constitutionally protected. Although the Milkovich decision appears to put some media defendants in the same position as private defendants, that is granting less protection for speech, the decision perpetuates distinctions between public and private defendants and newsworthy and private speech. Future standards should emphasize the value of the speech and not the position of the speaker.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Recklessly false statements in the public-employment context
Article Abstract:
Public employees who make reckless or knowingly false defamatory statements should not be protected by the First Amendment as long as the falsity or recklessness are shown by clear and convincing evidence. Courts have either chosen this per se rule or required public employers that discipline employees for such statements to prove actual harm. The per se rule paired with a heightened burden of proof will protect public employees more limited free speech rights.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0041-9494
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: judicial writings. What's an opinion for?
- Abstracts: An overview of ADA and its potential effects on workers' compensation law. Second generation employment discrimination: a structural approach
- Abstracts: The last priesthood: the coming revolution in medical care delivery. A better way to spur medical research and development
- Abstracts: Beyond litigation: new approaches in state/local sector collective bargaining. Patterns of teacher bargaining in Canada and the United States
- Abstracts: Why managements should (and should not) have respect for their shareholders. Financial transparency and corporate governance: you manage what you measure