Libel Essay Example for Free

Libel Essay The civil liberties that the American people have are described as inalienable rights. One of the most important of these rights is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; the First Amendment does not protect publishers of libel. Libel is defined as a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. The First Amendment provides a great deal of protection to the press in cases involving libel of public figures. This protection is considered necessary to ensure that the government will not restrict the flow of accurate information. The crime of libel has the following elements defamation, publication, the statement must be heard or seen by someone other than victim and source; identification, the statement must somehow identify its intended victim; falsity the statement must, and actual malice. Some of the significant court cases concerning libel are New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964), Behrendt v. Times Mirror (1938), Pauling v. Globe Democrat (1967), Kervorkian v. American Medical Association (1999), Washington Post v. Kennedy (1924), and Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979). Defamation is defined as â€Å"the act of injuring someone’s character or reputation by false statements. † [1] Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. One of the most important Supreme Court decisions concerning libel of public officials took place in 1964. This case was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This case was about the alleged libel of L.B. Sullivan in the New York Times magazine. The magazine published an editorial advertisement entitled, â€Å"Heed Their Rising Voices† by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. [2] The full-page advertisement detailed abuses suffered by African American students by the police in Montgomery, Alabama. Even though he was not directly mentioned in the article, L. B. Sullivan, the city commissioner in charge of the police department sued the magazine and four African American individuals listed as officers of the committee. Sullivan demanded retraction from the paper; after not receiving a retraction he sued. At trial, Sullivan argued that advertisements are not protected by the First Amendment and after a brief deliberation, the jury decided in favor of Sullivan awarding him damages of 500,000. [3] The award was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the lower courts. The Court declared that, although commercial advertisements may not be protected under the First Amendment, editorial advertisements were. Additionally, the Court ruled that the First and 14th Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with â€Å"actual malice that is, with knowledge that if was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. †[4] With these words the Court added a new criterion to test whether a criticism was punishable. Not only did the words have to be false and cause damage to the person’s reputation, they also had to be made with the knowledge that they were false. The Sullivan decision was hailed as a victory for a free press. Ralph A. Behrend and R. Allen Behrendt both worked at same hospital; LA Times charged Dr. Behrendt with the theft of narcotics and accused him of being an addict until his health had become destroyed. [5] When actually it was Dr. Behrend, a resident doctor who committed the crime. Dr. Behrendt sued and won because the publication involved an attempted reference to an individual so vague that it could refer to more than one person[6] In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the Golden Fleece Award of the Month. The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the nonsense of Hutchinsons research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmires statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss and emotional anguish. This case explored the scope of protection afforded members of Congress by the Constitutions Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. The Court upheld the decision of the lower courts and held that Proxmires statements in his newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. However, in upholding this ruling, the Court also found that Proxmires statements were not made with actual malice and thus, were not libelous. Furthermore, the Court decided that Hutchinson was not a public figure since he only gained media attention because of Proxmires actions and did not personally seek it. Because of this, the standard established by New York Times v. Sullivan was not applicable. There are several important points established by this case, first, â€Å"absolute privilege has limits even when public officials utter defamatory statements as part of their perceived official duties, and individuals do not become public officials simply by virtue, nor can they be made public figures by the creation of controversy by someone else.