Private People

Easing the way for libel suits

For more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has been trying to balance the public's right to know and the individual's right to protect his reputation. The court did not want to stop people who had been defamed from suing for libel. But at the same time, it wanted to make sure that the risk of costly libel suits would not prevent the press from publishing stories of public interest. So, in a line of cases going back to New York Times vs. Sullivan in 1964, the court gradually worked out a compromise: it made it very difficult for people who involve themselves in public issues to win a libel suit. These "public figures" must show "actual malice"; in other words, that a defendant consciously lied or was recklessly indifferent to the accuracy of what he published. Malice is hard to prove. Judges usually dismiss libel suits brought by public figures before they even get to trial.

Deciding that someone is a public figure is easy enough if he is running for office or commenting on a nightly news show. But what if an otherwise obscure person is unwillingly caught up in a public controversy? Does he too become a public figure? Last week the Supreme Court answered no.

In one case, Senator William Proxmire ridiculed a scientist, Ronald Hutchinson, claiming that he had wasted taxpayers' dollars with his publicly funded research. Hutchinson had received more than $500,000 to study aggression in monkeys in order to help the Navy and NASA better select crewmen for submarines and spacecraft. Calling the project "monkey business," Proxmire announced in news releases and newsletters that he had honored it with one of his monthly "Golden Fleece Awards." Hutchinson sued him for $8 million in damages for libel. Another case involved a man named Ilya Wolston, a former State Department interpreter, who had been cited for contempt for refusing to appear before a grand jury investigating Soviet intelligence in 1958. He later cooperated, and was never indicted for espionage. When in 1974 Wolston was listed in a book called KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Agents as "among Soviet agents identified in the U.S.," Wolston sued the book's author, John Barren, and its publisher, Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

Both Hutchinson and Wolston were declared to be public figures by lower courts, and both libel suits were summarily dismissed. But the high court reversed those decisions. Neither man had "thrust" himself into a public controversy in order to affect its outcome, ruled the court.

Mere involvement in a newsworthy event, it said, does not automatically make someone a public figure. The court also rejected Senator Proxmire's argument that he was insulated from libel suits by the Constitution, which states that "for any speech or debate in either House," members of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other place." Congressmen cannot be held liable for what they say on the floor of Congress, but the court held that they can be for their newsletters and press releases.

Undaunted by the decision and the trial for libel that he now faces, Proxmire vowed that he will continue to issue the Golden Fleece Award. But many press lawyers are concerned that the court's actions will result in more libel cases, and that more of them will survive summary judgment and go to a jury for a full trial. That is when legal fees soar.

A footnote in the Hutchinson decision also cautioned judges against automatically throwing out libel cases brought by clear-cut public figures. The defendant's state of mind--the key element in actual malice--"does not readily lend itself to summary disposition," wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger. Just two months ago, the high court ruled in Herbert vs. Lando that libel plaintiffs can probe a reporter's state of mind. This may raise questions of fact that only a jury, not a judge, can decide.

Warned the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: "These decisions will encourage harassing libel suits and will discourage news about public events." For large publishing and broadcasting organizations, the risk is probably small. But the threat of libel may inhibit any small newspaper or publishing house that lacks the resources to defend itself.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.