StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official - Literature review Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper 'A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official' presents an elected Commissioner of the City of Montgomery, Alabama who brought a civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, composed of Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER97.9% of users find it useful
A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official"

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, March 09, 1964 FACTS: Respondent Sullivan, an elected Commissioner of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, brought a civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, composed of Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The newspaper company published an ‘editorial’ advertisement that communicated information, expressed opinion, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of the Negro movements (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Paragraphs purported to illustrate the ‘wave of terror’ by describing certain alleged events (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The text in the end, appealed for funds for purposes such as the “support of the student movement, the struggle for the right-to-vote, and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. against a perjury indictment (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Respondent contended that although the statements do not mention the respondent by name, the word ‘police’ referred to him as he supervised the Police Department, and hence being accused of those alleged in the advertisement (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). He further claimed that the rest of the paragraph referred to the police (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). It was found that some of the statements were not accurate descriptions of events, which happened in Montgomery (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The jury were under instructions by the trial judge upon presentation of the case, that the statements made were “libelous per se and were not privileged,” and hence the petitioners may be held liable if found to have published the advertisement and if the “statements were made of and concerning respondent,” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Being libelous per se, the judge cited that “falsity and malice are presumed from the bare fact of their publication,” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). He added that general damages are presumed, hence, “need not be alleged or proved,” and that the jury may award punitive damages even though there is no showing of the amount of actual damages (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The decision also failed to charge to the jury that there must be malice or “actual intent to harm or gross negligence and recklessness” and did not distinguish between compensatory and punitive damages (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). These rulings and instructions were sustained by the Supreme Court of Alabama in all respects and added the injury being implied, there is no need for ‘proof of pecuniary injury’ for it to be actionable (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). It also rejected the constitutional contentions of the petitioners stating that, “The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications and that the Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action and not private action,” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Alabama, in awarding $500,000 to the plaintiff (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Certiorari, however was granted to the defendants because of the constitutional issues involved pertaining to freedom of speech and press which, as claimed by the defendants, “limit a state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct,” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). ISSUE: Whether the ruling on the liability applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridged the freedoms of speech and of the press that are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). DECISION: The Supreme Court, through Mr. Justice Brennan, held that the application by Alabama courts of the rule of law was “constitutionally deficient” as it failed for failure to give safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press required under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in cases of libel action brought against critics by a public official as to his official conduct (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Furthermore, it stated that the evidence presented was constitutionally insufficient to sustain the judgment in favor of the plaintiff (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). It stated that this case, although involving a civil lawsuit between private parties, is still subject to constitutional scrutiny since there are claims of invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The publication which “communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern,” was not a commercial advertisement as used in the case of Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262, and hence, still subject of constitutional scrutiny (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The Court held that the advertisement being “an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time,” it would then qualify for constitutional protection, although there is some existence of falsity in the statements made. Citing N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445, 83 S.Ct. 328, 344, 9 L.Ed.2d 405, the Court stated that “constitutional protection does not turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered,” N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445, 83 S.Ct. 328, 344, 9 L.Ed.2d 405. It stated that injury to official reputation is a repression of speech, which can be justified only if there is a showing of a clear and present danger and obstruction of justice (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). The proof presented in order to show actual malice, was insufficient and unclear which the constitutional standard demands and hence judgment for respondent cannot be sustained (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). Finally, the Court stated that evidence was “constitutionally defective” as no reference was made to respondent, either by name or official position, in the said advertisement as the testimony failed to establish the connection between the respondent and the advertisement (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964). This being the basis or rationale for the Court’s decision, reversed and remanded the case. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323, June 25, 1974 FACTS: Petitioner in this case was retained as an attorney of a Chicago policeman named Nuccio who was convicted of murder, in order to represent him in the civil litigation (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). Respondent herein published an article alleging that the murder trial of Nuccio was “part of a Communist conspiracy to discredit the local police, falsely stated that petitioner arranged Nuccio’s frame-up” and even labeled Petitioner as a Communist-fronter (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). Libel action was then brought by the Petitioner against the respondent before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). The district court held, citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, there is no liability for defamation of a public official if there is no proof as to the “knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.” Court stated that petitioner failed to prove knowledge of such falsity and hence held a decision in favor of the respondent (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the said decision, hence, the Petitioner brought this case on certiorari (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). ISSUE: Whether or not a publisher herein may claim constitutional privilege against liability, for injury inflicted on an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure on the basis of a claim that discussion was of a public issue (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). DECISION: The Supreme Court, through Justice Powell, held that “a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim the New York Times protection against liability for defamation on the ground that the defamatory statements concern an issue of public or general interest,” (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). The Court reasoned that private individuals “have less opportunities for rebuttal than public officials and public figures” in that, they would be more vulnerable to injury from defamation (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). The court stated that they deserve more recovery, not having voluntarily exposed themselves to such defamatory falsehoods (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). The court further stated that if the New York Times v. Sullivan case were extended as to include, private person whenever an issue of public interest arises, would beyond the legitimate state interest (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). The private individual defamed, if he or she has established liability “based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth” may recover compensation only for actual recovery (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). Finally, the Court held that Petitioner’s past service on certain city committees nor his appearance as an attorney in the case, did not make him a public official nor a public figure (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). There was no clear evidence shown that petitioner was involved in ordering the affairs of the society to make him a public figure (Gertz v. Welch, 1974). Conclusion I agree with the decisions. Certainly. There must be a distinction between a private individual and a public official or public figure when subject to scrutiny and defamation. A public official is always exposed to the public and has a duty to conduct himself rightly at all times while a private individual has more freedom to do things without examination of the public. Either way however, it must still comply with the guarantees of the Constitution on the freedom of speech and of the press. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official Literature review, n.d.)
A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official Literature review. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1545967-report-about-communication-law-case-comparison
(A Distinction Between a Private Individual and a Public Official Literature Review)
A Distinction Between a Private Individual and a Public Official Literature Review. https://studentshare.org/law/1545967-report-about-communication-law-case-comparison.
“A Distinction Between a Private Individual and a Public Official Literature Review”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1545967-report-about-communication-law-case-comparison.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF A Distinction between a Private Individual and a Public Official

How Police Officers Learn Professional Ethics

These ethics give a foundation by which a behavior of an individual and his thoughts can be calculated.... In reality, learning most of the times predate official teaching and socialization endeavor as a consequence of distinctive, communal and historical issues.... The process of socialization of being a police official is one analytical feature in building professional...
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Purpose of Human Rights

According to liberal theory, state sovereignty dictates that all political and public authority belongs to the state.... More significantly, human rights have followed a human rights movement in the 20th century that involved a universal code for human rights and private law was said to be best served at the national level, an… d reflected of individual national values and traits.... The purpose of private law is to facilitate the activities of free and equal citizens....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Aristotle's constitution

The chairman of the Prytanies or the committee of the Boule or Council, who kept the city seal and held the keys to the place where the treasury and public records were stored, was rotated in that office daily and could not serve twice (Moore, 1983:186).... Ten strategoi or generals, were elected from the whole citizenry and served more generally as a court of chief magistrates (Moore, 1983:142), but these magistrates were always answerable to the electorate as to their conduct in office, and with the vote of the Prytany could be tried in the dikasterion or the public courts for any violations of electoral trust (Moore, 1983:201)....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Distinction of Personal and Private and a Private Collection

This report "Distinction of Personal and Private and a private Collection" discusses the concept of the countertypes of collectors as it can disentangle the secret historical meanings of things they accrue.... There has been a significant distinction between public and private historically and this distinction has become one of the ubiquitous features of everyday life.... In the economic and political definition of property, the distinction between the two is represented by Marxist and capitalist ideologies and private property is a central feature of a capitalist economy....
8 Pages (2000 words) Book Report/Review

Burke's Distinction and Public Representation

The primary role of a public representative is, however, to understand the difference between opinion and interest, and to legislate with the best interests of the people in mind.... Although public opinion is downplayed in this relationship, it certainly has its place in terms of public representation simply because the electorate must feel placated.... public representatives must work to find a balance between the focus of opinion and interest....
8 Pages (2000 words) Article

Political Corruption in Bulgaria after 1989

nbsp;The people and the government have caught between two worlds- the old communist thoughts and the modern capitalistic liberal attitude.... This essay "Political Corruption in Bulgaria after 1989" is about post-communist Bulgaria which strived hard to emerge as an economic power in Europe....
13 Pages (3250 words) Essay

Immunity of Senior State Officials

This brief essay "Immunity of Senior State Officials" presents a discussion about state immunity.... The writer states that the concept of sovereign immunity used to be absolute, but by the 1970s, a large number of states had reverted to the restrictive approach.... hellip; It should be clear from the previous discussion that heads of states and senior state officials get respect and immunities because they must act in the highest moral tradition....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Private Law and Human Rights

nbsp;  … Ultimately, human rights law is a part of public law that emerged with the creation of the state.... public law conferred upon states the authority to legislate and govern and thus regulates the relationship between the citizen and the state.... 20th century that involved a universal code for human rights and private law was said to be best served at the national level and reflected of individual national values and traits....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us