Landmark libel case still relevant in the digital age

Before you go, we thought you'd like these...
Landmark libel case still relevant in the digital age
The US Supreme Court building is seen from atop the Capitol dome December 19, 2013 in Washington, DC. The United States Capitol Dome, symbol of American democracy and world-renowned architectural icon, was constructed of cast iron more than 150 years ago. The Dome has not undergone a complete restoration since 1959-1960 and due to age and weather is now plagued by more than 1,000 cracks and deficiencies. The Architect of the Capitol began in November, a multi-year project to repair these deficiencies, restoring the Dome to its original, inspiring splendor. AFP PHOTO / Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
FILE - In this Aug. 28, 2010 file photo, Courtney Love of the U.S. band Hole performs at the Sluzewiec Racing Track in Warsaw, Poland. Love hadn?t been born and tweeting was reserved for birds when The New York Times won a landmark libel case at the Supreme Court in 1964. But when a California jury decided recently that Love shouldn?t have to pay $8 million for a troublesome tweet about her former lawyer, she became just the latest person to lean on New York Times v. Sullivan, a case decided 50 years ago Sunday, and the cases that followed and expanded it. (AP Photo/Alik Keplicz, File)
LONDON, ENGLAND - MAY 16: Sally Bercow (C), wife of John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice on May 16, 2013 in London, England. Mrs Bercow is being sued for libel over a tweet she posted which referenced Lord McAlpine that he claims linked him to false allegations of child abuse. (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)
TORONTO, ON - NOVEMBER 13: Owner of the Boardwalk Pub George Foulidis arrives at court. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is in court today defending against a $6 million libel lawsuit. The lawsuit is about comments he made regarding the operating deal for the Boardwalk Cafe in the Beach. (Carlos Osorio/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
FILE - In this Nov. 7, 2012, file photo, Former Penn State president Graham Spanier arrives before entering a judge's office in Harrisburg, Pa. Spanier initiated a libel and defamation case Thursday, July 11, 2013, against Louis Freeh, the former FBI director who a year ago produced a report for the school that was highly critical of Spanier's role in the child sex abuse scandal involving longtime assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. (AP Photo/Jason Minick, File)
In this July 21, 2009 photo, shows Tesla CEO Elon Musk talking about the lawsuit at Tesla headquarters in San Carlos, Calif., Tuesday, July 21, 2009. A judge is allowing to proceed a lawsuit by a founder of Tesla Motors that accuses the electric car maker and its chief executive of libel, slander and several other allegations. Martin Eberhard claims that Musk unfairly blamed him for Tesla's well-documented financial woes in interviews with the media and in postings on the company's blogs. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
**FILE** Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Thomas speaks inside the Illinois Supreme Courthouse in Springfield in this Sept. 14, 2005, file photo. The Kane County Chronicle, a suburban Chicago newspaper, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday, June 12, 2007, against Thomas claiming it can't fairly appeal a multimillion defamation verdict awarded to the justice while he heads the state's most powerful court. Thomas won a lawsuit he filed against the paper over a series of columns he alleged were untrue and damaged his reputation. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)
of
SEE ALL
BACK TO SLIDE
SHOW CAPTION +
HIDE CAPTION


WASHINGTON (AP) - Singer Courtney Love hadn't been born and tweeting was reserved for birds when The New York Times won a landmark libel case at the Supreme Court in 1964.

But when a California jury decided recently that Love shouldn't have to pay $8 million over a troublesome tweet about her former lawyer, she became just the latest person to lean on New York Times v. Sullivan, a case decided 50 years ago Sunday, and the cases that followed and expanded it.

The Sullivan case, as it known among lawyers, stemmed from Alabama officials' efforts to hamper the newspaper's coverage of civil rights protests in the South. The decision made it hard for public officials to win lawsuits and hefty money awards over published false statements that damaged their reputations.

In the decades since, the justices have extended the decision, making it tough for celebrities, politicians and other public figures to win libel suits.

Newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations were the primary means of publishing when the Sullivan case was decided. Today, the case applies equally to new media such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs. Because of the ease of publishing online, more people may claim the protections granted by the decision and others that followed.

"It seems reasonably clear that the protections afforded by Sullivan and the cases that came after it apply to both media and nonmedia speakers," said Lee Levine, a First Amendment lawyer who co-wrote a recent book on the case.

"Technology has afforded everyone - and not just people who can afford to buy a printing press or own a broadcast station - the ability to disseminate information to the world. That has increased the opportunities for those people to publish defamatory statements to a very broad audience," Levine said.

Levine said it's unclear whether that opportunity will lead to more libel suits, cases brought over the publication of false information that injures someone's reputation. More ways to communicate could mean more suits, or there could be fewer because people may discount what they read online, and it may not be worth suing individuals who don't have corporations' wealth.

Or there may be other explanations.

"Today one of the reasons I think we don't have as many libel cases is not just because the Sullivan rule is so widely accepted by everyone, but in a digital world there's so much greater opportunity for response," said Bruce W. Sanford, a Washington-based First Amendment lawyer.

If one person says something untrue online, the person being spoken about has many more avenues to reply, agreed David Ardia, a University of North Carolina law professor and the co-director of the school's Center for Media Law and Policy. In the 1960s, the only way to respond to libel and "reach an audience was to get into the same newspaper, and that's no longer the case," he said, adding that the "megaphone" of the Internet is available to everyone.

The Internet was a long way off when the Sullivan case began in 1960. It started when the Times published a civil rights group's full-page ad, with the title "Heed Their Rising Voices," that described the brutal treatment of civil rights demonstrators in the South.

Egged on by a local newspaper editorial urging all Alabamians to sue, a Montgomery, Ala., city official named L.B. Sullivan claimed his reputation had been sullied by the ad's errors, though neither he nor any other official was named in it. Under state law preceding the Supreme Court decision, Sullivan won a judgment of $500,000, and the Times faced millions more in other suits.

The legal peril prompted the Times to pull all its reporters out of Alabama at a time of keen news interest in the civil rights movement.

Sullivan ultimately lost at the Supreme Court. Justice William Brennan, writing for a unanimous court, acknowledged that published errors can harm a person's reputation. But Brennan, himself ambivalent about reporters even as he emerged as a defender of press freedoms, and his colleagues also decided that it should be tough for public officials to win libel suits.

False statements are an inevitable part of the free debate that is fundamental to the American system of government and must be protected, Brennan wrote. The only way to win: Show that the false statement was made knowingly or with "reckless disregard for the truth." The decision freed news organizations to write about the civil rights movement without fearing lawsuits.

The Sullivan decision and others that followed haven't been without criticism, however, including some from three justices now on the Supreme Court.

At her high court confirmation hearing in 2010, Elena Kagan said the principle laid out in the case is vital to free speech, but she noted that it allows for serious harm to a person's reputation without any compensation or remedy.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 1985 memo as a White House lawyer that he favored making it easier for public figures to win in libel cases, while limiting the financial threat to the losing side.

Justice Antonin Scalia has been quoted as saying he would probably vote to reverse the decision if given the chance.

Still, scholars including Robert Sack, a federal judge who specialized in media law while in private practice, say the Sullivan decision has become so much part of the law that it's hard to see it being overturned.

That means anyone finding themselves in singer Love's situation may turn to the decision. In Love's case, the singer tweeted about a former lawyer, writing that the woman had been "bought off" in a suit involving the estate of Love's late husband, musician Kurt Cobain. The lawyer, Rhonda Holmes, sued for $8 million, claiming the tweet was false and had hurt her reputation.

But Holmes ran up against the Sullivan rule. A jury found in January that though Love published a false statement, she didn't know it was false.

Holmes' lawyer, Mitchell Langberg, said he knew it would be a difficult case. Still, he advised Twitter users: "Careful what you tweet."

___

Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

___

Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jessicagresko
Read Full Story

People are Reading