Jour 430

Gertz v. Welch

needs actual malice to win case against public official
makes it easier for private individuals to win libel suits

defendant always wants to prove that he/she is a public figure, so it would be harder for the opponent to win

Gertz - found to be a private figure (well-known, the average person would not recognize him)

no punitive damages - good news for the media  --- since only negligence is proved

IF actual malice is proved, he can get presumed AND punitive damages

RESULTS - made it possible for states to allow different treatment for public and private figures
 - public officials / public figures need a higher fault standard for libel
 - made it easier for private figures to win libel suit


Did not go over in class:
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
PUBLIC OFFICIALS according to libel law
elected officials: mayor, governor, school board member
high-ranking appointed official : ex. any Supreme Court Judge, Secretary of State, President Alexander (of CSULB)
cabinet members
agency heads
police chief
university chancellor
anyone who has control over governmental affairs
candidates for public office
influential public figures

LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURES
have thrust themselves into a public controversy to influence its outcome / ex:  anti-war activist who attends a demonstration
just by representing family (an attorney) does not make it a limited-purpose public figure --doesn't constitute voluntary injection to influence outcome
newsworthiness not the same as public controversy


CLASSIFICATION for public figures
recognizing public figures who dont' work for the government
- candidates
- all-purpose public figures: those who have positions of such influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes (ex: Oprah, Kobe, John Stewart, entertainers, etc.)

VOLUNTARY limited public figures
must meet these three guidelines:
1. voluntarily thrust themselves
2. must be a public controversy
3. have done so to influence its outcome

INVOLUNTARY limited public figures
Supreme Court guidelines:
- plaintiff must be involved in a public controversy
- must have played a central role in the controversy, whether wanting to or not
- libel must be germane to the controversy
- the plaintiff has to have had access to the media, allowing him to tell his/her side of the story


EXAMPLES
Time Inc. v. Firestone, Mary -
 - tire company - getting divorced - was in the media
 - turned out to be ruled to not be a public figure

Wolston v. Readers Digest Association -
- russian interpreter for us army in wwII - refused to comply with the subpoenaed (too ill) - did not volunteer or thrust himself into the public controversy
- court concluded Wolston was not a voluntary limited public figure

Hutchinson v. Proxmire - 
- not a voluntary limited public figure
defense - opinion / hyperbole / fair comment
made hutchinson sound like he was personally enriching himself --- not true
proxmire claimed v.l.p.f.
did not win

wisconsin farmer/ pollution crisis - involuntary limited public figure


Four categories: 
- have to prove 5 things: 1 identification 2 falsity 3 publication 4 defamation 5 fault -
- all have to prove actual malice -
1. Public Officials
2. All-purpose public figures
3. Voluntary limited public official
4. Involuntary limited public official


Jerry Falwell V. Hustler Magazine 
Larry Flint - Hustler magazine publisher - hated Falwell
"You'll never forget your first time."Campari - drink.
parody interview - effed his mom in an outhouse
1983 pastor of the Baptist
Sued on three grounds:
1. sues for libel
2. invasion of privacy
3. intentional infliction for emotional distress
Had all four components of the emotional distress
Ruled against Falwell - need to demonstrate actual malice because he is a public figure
Falwell lost the libel claim
Libel suit fails ---> results in emotional distress failing

Emotional distress - four elements
- wrong doer's conduct is intentional/reckless
- conduct is so outrageous as to offend generally accepted standards of decency
- conduct is, in fact, the cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress
- emotional distress caused is severe


Libel quiz next tuesday, april 16th