Case Study: B. Gertz In The Social Media Era

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

The lawsuit’s First Amendment implications are not always understood and appreciated by the public in cases like these. “This sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court

He says, “The classical liberal conceptions of free speech and free press may not be enough to produce a fully informed electorate or to redress the social and economic ills that skew public debate. But as a constitutional matter, they remain the single best defense against overweening state.” He also points out the alternative to private control of speech and the media is state control, which will have a deadly consequence as far as freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the accuracy of the reports are concerned. He concludes his report by saying that the civil liberties and rights may be flawed, but they are our only tool in balancing the powers of the government and the

Libel is false, “published or broadcast communication that lowers the reputation of an individual by holding him or her up to contempt, ridicule, or scorn” (Pember, 691). Defamation is a broader, more encompassing term that includes both libel, which is published defamation, and slander, which is spoken defamation. In the case Gregory v. Gregory, plaintiffs Robert, Christopher, and Samuel Gregory sue their brother, W. Patric Gregory III (“Patric Gregory”) for libel. The brothers are in a family business together called New Jersey Galvanizing and Tinning Works, Inc. (“NJG”), where one of the plaintiffs, Robert Gregory, is the president. A few years ago, the plaintiffs were involved in a dispute that did not include the defendant Patric

In the past, many great civilizations were heavily influenced by religion. Their religious beliefs inspired and shaped their art, culture, architecture, and technology, and helped drive their progress forward.

Upon reviewing the case, it was determined that publications or broadcasts containing “defamatory falsehoods” pertaining to individuals like Gertz who was not classified as a public official or a public figure are ineligible to receive protection as established by New York Times Co., v. Sullivan from statements, as libelous and defamatory as they may be. Further, it was determined that the publication in American Opinion was of public and general interest (Gertz v. Welch – Justia).

The most famous defamation case, which still sets precedent in today's cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous stories. It protects the country's public icons seeing they are almost always in the spotlight. In addition to defamation hindering media, obscenity and pornography on the net have placed limitations on what some websites may provide in terms of content.

Lewis states that this case “revolutionized the law of libel in the United States” he explains that “The old common law doctrine putting the burden on libel defendants to prove truth was reversed.” (Lewis, Pg.55) This case even resulted in affecting the law in other countries, I agree that it was the right approach to create the three laws of libel. I feel that Lewis does a great job writing this case objectively yet still allowing his readers to come to the same conclusion he does, the case was handled properly by the Supreme Court in their ending deciscion.

One case shows that how defamation laws protects speech that has no first amendment value. In the Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. case a United States Supreme Court case rejected the argument that separate opinion privilege existed against libel. The court had referred to the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

The far reaching circular we now have permits the thriving of first amendment with damages as very much requested society should not allow. Despite the fact that scorn discourse is portrayed by viewed height absolutists as a private demonstration of expression that ought to be shielded from government controls and authorizes. When we comprehend the mischief that contempt discourse may deliver, we are in a superior position to get a handle on the contention for the enactment that confines it.

Ms. Pinkerton explained how she at first began this project as an independent project and approached professor Silver to help her with narrowing the topic down and beginning to look for appropriate and relevant information on the issue. The preliminary research portion of the thesis took ten weeks of looking, reading, and coding of the articles. In order to form an argument using the articles, Ms. Pinkerton used a simple coding method that selected important words and designated them with a positive or negative connotation with whichever had more being the general view of the article. It was clear from an early stage that both the New York Times and Washington post were heavily biased, mostly against the Court and its decision, while SCOTUSblog remained neutral and impartial throughout the trial. Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, the mystery and allure the court has maintained has developed a phenomenon known as the “myth of legality” where the general public has been directed to believe that everything the Supreme Court does or acts upon is not only legal, but within their power to do. This common, yet unfortunate, misconception has lead to the Court being viewed as a supreme being, able to alter the constitution and decide the validity of

The media’s job is to entertain, inform, and educate society on what is going on around the world. The media entertains society by reporting stories that amuse people. The educational function of the media is about allowing society to know their legal rights. The informational aspect of the media does not need to be explained; it is self-explanatory. Within the last three decades, the media’s role has changed dramatically. The media went from using telegraphs, post offices, newspapers, magazines, radio, and television to using cell phones and tablets. In the modern era, which is also sometimes referred to as the information age, global networking and global communication have shaped modern societies. The majority of

The meaning of libel was clarified in other such court cases as Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). This case is about the murder of young man by police officer, Mr Nuccio. The victim’s family appointed lawyer Elmer Gertz to represent them in court. The lawyer Gertz was later in an article Robert Welch’s magazine, American Opinion, about communism and how the murder was a setup to try to create a communist government in america and discredit police officers. The article also said falsely that Mr Gertz was a crimminal and that he was a communist. Gertz filed a lawsuit stating that he was wrongly accused of being a communist and that the other statements made in the article were false. He used the court cases of New York Times v Sullivian and the other case Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts to prove his case. The

“publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which makes them shun or avoid that person”