Public/Private Status: Recent Case Law Examples
_____________
NEW YORK TIMES V SULLIVAN (1964)
A PUBLIC OFFICIAL BRINGING A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST A MASS MEDIA DEFENDANT MUST PROVE ACTUAL MALICE.
GERTZ V WELCH (1974)
A PRIVATE CITIZEN PLAINTIFF WHO HAS "THRUST HIMSELF INTO THE VORTEX" OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC CONTROVERSY MUST PROVE ACTUAL MALICE IN A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST A MASS MEDIA DEFENDANT. THE PLAINTIFF BECOMES A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE.
UNDER RARE CIRCUMSTANCES A PRIVATE CITIZEN MAY BECOME AN ALL-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE OR AN INVOLUNTARY PUBLIC FIGURE.
IN ALL LIBEL SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST MASS MEDIA DEFENDANTS EACH STATE MUST REQUIRE THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHOW ACTUAL MALICE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR FIGURE AND AT LEAST NEGLIGENCE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF IS A PRIVATE PERSON.
IN ORDER TO WIN PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALL PLAINTIFFS MUST SHOW ACTUAL MALICE.
"KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY OR RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH"
IN ORDER TO PROVE ACTUAL MALICE, THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THAT "THE DEFENDANT ENTERTAINED [OR SHOULD HAVE ENTERTAINED] SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE TRUTH OF HIS PUBLICATION."[ST AMANT V THOMPSON]
"FAILURE TO EXERCISE THE DEGREE OF CARE WHICH A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE WOULD EXERCISE UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES."
Public Official1. The Individual must be on a government payroll.
2. The person must hold a position that invites public scrutiny.
--All elected officials or candidates for elected office. (when story pertains to performance in or ability to hold office).
--Police Officers (when story pertains to official actions).
--Public School Teachers (when story pertains to performance or qualifications).
"[Limited] public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved...they invite attention and comment.
GERTZ V WELCH (1974)
A PRIVATE CITIZEN PLAINTIFF WHO HAS "THRUST HIMSELF INTO THE VORTEX" OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC CONTROVERSY MUST PROVE ACTUAL MALICE IN A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST A MASS MEDIA DEFENDANT. THE PLAINTIFF BECOMES A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE.
WHEELER V GREEN (OR. 1979)
"One does not become a public figure simply because of a general public interest in one's lifestyle and personal activities or because one's job happens to be one in which widespread publicity is given to outstanding performance."
BANK OF OREGON V INDEPENDENT NEWS (OR. 1985)
(1)NO CONTROVERSY EXISTED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF WW STORY. (COURT INTERPRETED CONTROVERSY NARROWLY)
(2) "Merely opening one's doors to the public, offering stock for sale, advertising about general matters of public interest, even if considered a thrusting of one's self into matters of public interest, is not sufficient to establish a corporation is a public figure."
IS THE 'GIST" OF THE STORY AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS?
Are the facts as broad as the defamatory statement?
IS THE REPORT TAKEN FROM A PRIVILEGED FORUM?
IS THE REPORT FAIR AND ACCURATE?
IS THE STATEMENT A STATEMENT OF OPINION?
DOES THE STATEMENT CONCERN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE P?
IF THE STATEMENT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A STATEMENT OF FACT, ARE THE FACTS KNOWN TO THE AUDIENCE OR PRESENT IN THE PUBLICATION?
IN OREGON, THE SUIT MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF PUBLICATION.
RETRACTION MUST BE REQUESTED WITHIN 20 DAYS OF PUBLICATION. IF THE PUBLICATION PUBLISHES A RETRACTION OR A CORRECTION WITHIN 2 WEEKS OF RECEIVING A WRITTEN REQUEST, THE P MAY STILL SUE BUT DAMAGES ARE LIMITED.
NOTE: A RETRACTION MUST BE REQUESTED BEFORE A P CAN FILE A LIBEL ACTION.