Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show
Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution journal article Defamation Suits as a Weapon in Corporate Control BattlesThe Business Lawyer Vol. 37, No. 1 (November 1981) , pp. 1-25 (25 pages) Published By: American Bar Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/40686342 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Journal Information The Business Lawyer is the premier business law journal in the country, circulating to approximately 60,000 readers. It contains articles of significant interest to the business lawyer, including case law analysis, developing trends and annotated listings of recent literature. Publisher Information With nearly 400,000 members, the ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Annotation Primary Holding To sustain a claim of defamation or libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate. Facts During the Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th century, the New York Times published a full-page ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies, such as the number of times that King had been arrested and actions taken by the Montgomery, Alabama police. The city Public Safety commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. Sullivan sent a written request to the Times to publicly retract the information, as required for a public figure to seek punitive damages in a libel action under Alabama law. When the Times refused and claimed that they were puzzled by the request, Sullivan filed his libel action against the Times and a group of African-American ministers mentioned in the ad. A jury in state court awarded him $500,000 in damages. Curiously, the Times did eventually retract the ad's statements when Alabama Governor John Patterson demanded it. The newspaper felt that, while Patterson also was not named in the ad, its comments reflected more directly on him because he represented the state of Alabama generally. Opinions Majority
Brennan held that the First Amendment did not permit a finding of liability by Alabama courts in this context, especially considering the modest evidence that had been presented. When a statement concerns a public figure, according to Brennan, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity. Brennan used the term "actual malice" to summarize this standard, although he did not intend the usual meaning of a malicious purpose. "Malice" had a long-standing meaning within libel law that limited it to knowledge or gross recklessness rather than intent, since courts found it difficult to imagine that someone would knowingly disseminate false information without a bad intent. However, it previously had been used only to determine whether enhanced penalties, such as punitive damages, should be awarded. Concurrence
While he agreed with the majority's reasoning, Black felt that the actual malice standard did not go far enough in providing First Amendment protections. He argued that it was not clear enough to be consistently applied. Concurrence
Case Commentary This case clarified the scope of First Amendment protection for speech on matters of public concern, resolving a disagreement among lower courts as to whether it extended beyond opinion and comment to good-faith statements that proved to be factually and objectively false. In deciding that it did, the Supreme Court gave substantial protections to defendants such as newspapers and other media outlets by raising the burden of proof required for plaintiffs in libel claims. Another, less familiar development associated with this case is the burden shifting from the defendant proving that the statement was true, as was traditionally done in defamation cases, to the plaintiff proving that the statement was false. Great Britain continues to adhere to the traditional rule, while Australia has followed the U.S. in making the shift. Which of the following terms describes making false statements about the financial condition?Defamation is making statement which are false as to the financial condition of any insurer and which are calculated to injury any person engaged in the business of insurance.
Which of the following activities would not result in the suspension of an agent's license?Which of the following activities will NOT result in the suspension of an agent's license? Working for a foreign insurer. (Working for a foreign insurance company does not result in the revocation or suspension of an agent's license.)
When an insurance licensee moves he has how long to notify the Florida Dept of Financial Services of his change of address?*NOTE: Most licensees have 30 days from the change in your information, to notify the Department or be subject to administrative action (s.
Which entity is responsible for regulating insurance advertising in New Jersey?NJDOBI. Division of Insurance. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is the organization of insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. More information about New Jersey and the NAIC...
|
Agents may be found guilty of defamation if they make false statements that are intended to
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 decemle Inc.
