Legal Definition of Public Official and All-Purpose Public Figure in Libel Lawsuits - Prof, Study notes of Communication

Download Legal Definition of Public Official and All-Purpose Public Figure in Libel Lawsuits - Prof and more Study notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity! 12-LIBEL: Fault Know and understand the definitions and rules and how they are applied in Oklahoma. Be able to correctly recognize and apply them in hypothetical situations. Who is the plaintiff?  Public official: o The correct legal definition. How have the U.S. Supreme Court and Oklahoma Supreme Court defined public official?  A person who is elected to any government position, to even the most lowly public office, qualifies as a public official. Persons who are appointed to or hired for gov. jobs may qualify as public persons in a libel action. It depends on the nature of the job. o What criteria help determine if the government employee is a public official for the purposes of a libel lawsuit?  “it is clear that the public official designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of gov. employees who have or appear to have to the public a substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.”  “Where a position in government has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performances of all gov. employees.  Level of responsibility individual has (How important is the job?)  The kind of responsibility the person has  Individual has the authority to spend public money independently without supervision  Nature of the person’s job  1 – manner in which plaintiff conducts self in office  2 – plaintiff’s general fitness to hold that job  Carries burden of proving actual malice o Is every government employee considered a public official for the purposes of a libel lawsuit?  No. o Are all elected officials considered a public official for the purposes of a libel lawsuit?  yes o Examples of public officials (and the courts' reasoning) discussed in class and in the readings, including:  Volunteer wrestling coach  public official-The court said the public had an independent interest in the coach’s performance “as to the method of disciplining a sixth grade boy in conjunction with the grade school wrestling team. This interest went beyond the general interest as to the performance of ‘all government employees,’ as indicated by the number of withdrawals of students by parents from [the coach’s] physical education classes.’” Even though his coaching duties were voluntary, the court reasoned that he “was operating within the framework of the public school system, an obvious governmental function… we can think of 1 no higher community involvement touching more families and carrying more public interest than the public school system. This includes the athletic program.”  Tag agent  The court ruled a tag agent was a public official, even though the plaintiff contended he was an independent contractor, not a government employee. The court said the second guideline “was not intended to limit it to those individuals who have a traditional employee-employer relationship with a governmental unit It extends to those who have, or appear to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs…” This definition applied to the tag agent who—the court said—“held a position of substantial public impact, and had duties which involved the collection and accounting for substantial amounts of public funds, as well as administering an area of the law which affected practically every citizen of Oklahoma County, the area in which he served.”  School board member  A school board member is a public official. Apparently believing that the court in Johnston had used the “substantial responsibility” guideline to declare a “physical education teacher” a public official, the Court of Appeals said “It cannot now be seriously argued it would not apply to a school board member possessing the power to officially influence the employment of teachers.” The Court of Appeals then applied the third guideline, saying, “The debate may be whether a night watchman is a public official, but clearly the plaintiff here meets the test of one who’s position must be one which would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it, entirely apart from the scrutiny and discussion occasioned by the charges in controversy.”  Police  Oklahoma courts have declared that police officers are public officials, saying that such a conclusion is “unmistakable.” Some libel plaintiffs have conceded that they are public officials, such as public school teachers and a police chief. o Can the particular controversy at issue turn the plaintiff into a public official? In other words, is the plaintiff status based on the person's job before the controversy erupted? P. 199  No. The Supreme Court ruled that the person must hold a position that invites public scrutiny of the person holding it, entirely apart from the scrutiny and discussion occasioned by the particular charges in the community.  Public interest in the person’s job before the controversy began – not interest once controversy happens. o Must the alleged libel relate to the plaintiff's official conduct or conduct relevant to fitness for office? What conduct is considered relevant to fitness for office? What rule of thumb seems to apply?  Yes. Strength of nexus between position and alleged false statements relates to way conduct job  “Anything which might touch on an official’s fitness for office is relevant,” the USSC said. This rule “protects the paramount public 2  Big.  Can the news media create a public controversy through its reporting and subsequently argue the plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure because of the controversy? In other words, must the limited-purpose status predate the false reporting? No. Yes.  Must the alleged libel relate to that controversy? What does that mean?  For a plaintiff to be categorized as a public figure who thrust to the forefront of a particular public controversy, the alleged libel must relate directly to that controversy. In other words, the plaintiff is a public figure only for that public controversy.  Under what circumstances could a business be considered a limited-purpose public figure?  When the business has used highly unusual advertising or a promotional campaign to draw attention to itself.  When the business is regulated by the gov.  When the libelous comment about the business focuses on a matter of great public concern.  Once the person has achieved public figure status, does the status remain so regardless of the time that passes? What does it depend upon?  Yes, but only in regard to the issues or matters that generated the public person-status in the first place. o Private figure:  Why is a private figure more deserving of recovery?  A private figure has not accepted public office or assumed an “influential role in ordering society… He has relinquished no part of his interest in the protection of his own good name, and consequently he has a more compelling call on the courts for redress of injury inflicted by defamatory falsehood. Thus, private individuals are not only more vulnerable to injury than public officials and public figures; they are also more deserving of recovery.” o Why is the plaintiff category important?  It determines the level of fault, or error, on the part of the defendant that must be proved by the plaintiff.  What are the fault levels required in libel actions against the media? o The plaintiff in most jurisdictions will only have to demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care (was negligent) in preparing and publishing the defamatory material.  Who must prove those fault levels? o Private person? Actual Malice and Negligence  What are the correct legal definitions of those fault levels, that is, the legal definitions of actual malice and negligence? o Negligence implies failure to exercise ordinary care o Actual malice – “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth 5  What do those definitions mean and how is fault proved in Oklahoma? In other words, what constitutes "knowledge of falsity," "reckless disregard for the truth" and "negligence"? o “Knowledge of falsity” is the equivalent of lying by the defendant. o “Reckless disregard for the truth” has been defined by the Court as the defendant having a “high degree of awareness of the probably falsity” of the defamatory statement of having “serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” o Negligence has been defined as the defendant’s failure to exercise ordinary care.  What are some common reasons a reporter might be found negligent? o Reliance on an untrustworthy source o Not reading or misreading pertinent documents o Failure to check with an obvious source, perhaps the subject of the story o Carelessness in editing and news handling  Masson v. The New Yorker (significance of)  The key question was whether evidence of changing the words in a direct quote is, in and of itself, proof of knowledge of falsity. Jury found in her behalf.  What are the factors courts consider in determining whether actual malice is present in a libel action? o Direct, state-of-mind evidence indicating what the reporter thought or believed at the time of the story. The inquiry shouldn’t focus on “the defendant’s attitude toward the plaintiff, but rather on the defendant’s attitude toward the truth or falsity of the statement alleged to be defamatory.” o Courts examine indirect evidence consisting of the sources used or not used, the nature of the story and the inherent probability of believability of the defamatory statement.  The differences in AP v. Walker and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts that led to actual malice being found in one and not the other.  The court ruled that in the Butts case the Post had exhibited highly unreasonable conduct in publishing the story but that in the Walker case no such evidence was present. In the Butts case, the story was not what would be called a hot news item. In the Walker case, different circumstances were present.  The standards courts consider in determining if negligence is present in a libel action: Average Person Standard and Professional Standards. o Courts have defined negligence as the defendant’s failure to exercise ordinary care. The state Supreme Court defined “ordinary care” as “that degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons engaged in the same 6 kind of business usually exercise under similar circumstances.” Basically, must follow professional standards.  Examples of the types of actions found to be actual malice and negligence, as discussed in class and in the readings. 7