2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.

Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

(https://www.cornell.edu)CornellUniversityLawSchool(http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/)SearchCornell
(https://www.cornell.edu/search/)


SupremeCourt(/supremecourt/text/home)
about(/supct/supremes.htm)
search(/supct/search/)
liibulletin(/supct/cert/)
subscribe(/supct/cert/subscribe)
previews(/supct/cert/)

Rosenbloomv.Metromedia
403U.S.29

Rosenbloomv.Metromedia(No.66)

Argued:December7,1970

Decided:June7,1971

415F.2d892,affirmed.

Syllabus
Opinion,Brennan
Concurrence,Black
Concurrence,White
Dissent,Harlan
Dissent,Marshall

Syllabus

Respondent'sradiostation,whichbroadcastnewsreportseveryhalfhour,broadcastnewsstoriesof
petitioner'sarrestforpossessionofobsceneliteratureandthepoliceseizureof"obscenebooks,"and
storiesconcerningpetitioner'slawsuitagainstcertainofficialsallegingthatthemagazineshedistributed
werenotobsceneandseekinginjunctiverelieffrompoliceinterferencewithhisbusiness.Theselatter
storiesdidnotmentionpetitioner'sname,butusedtheterms"smutliteratureracket"and"girliebook
peddlers."Followingpetitioner'sacquittalofcriminalobscenitycharges,hefiledthisdiversityactionin
DistrictCourtseekingdamagesunderPennsylvania'slibellaw.Thejuryfoundforpetitionerandawarded
$25,000ingeneraldamagesand$725,000inpunitivedamages,whichwasreducedbythecourton
remittiturto$250,000.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,holdingthattheNewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376
U.S.254(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/376/254/),standardapplied,and"thefactthat
plaintiffwasnotapublicfigurecannotbeaccordeddecisivesignificance."

Held:Thejudgmentisaffirmed.Pp.4062.

MR.JUSTICEBRENNAN,joinedbyTHECHIEFJUSTICEandMR.JUSTICEBLACKMUN,concludedthat
theNewYorkTimesstandardofknowingorrecklessfalsityappliesinastatecivillibelactionbroughtbya
privateindividualforadefamatoryfalsehoodutteredinaradionewsbroadcastabouttheindividual's
involvementinaneventofpublicorgeneralinterest.Pp.4057.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 1/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

MR.JUSTICEBLACKconcludedthattheFirstAmendmentprotectsthenewsmediafromlibeljudgments
evenwhenstatementsaremadewithknowledgethattheyarefalse.P.57.

MR.JUSTICEWHITEconcludedthat,intheabsenceofactualmaliceasdefinedinNewYorkTimes,supra,
theFirstAmendmentgivesthenewsmediaaprivilegetoreportandcommentupontheofficialactionsof
publicservantsinfulldetail,withoutsparingfrompublicviewthereputationorprivacyofanindividual
involvedinoraffectedbyanyofficialaction.Pp.5962.[p30]

BRENNAN,J.,announcedtheCourt'sjudgmentanddeliveredanopinioninwhichBURGER,C.J.,and
BLACKMUN,J.,joined.BLACK,J.,post,p.57,andWHITE,J.,post,p.57,filedopinionsconcurringinthe
judgment.HARLAN,J.,filedadissentingopinion,post,p.62.MARSHALL,J.,filedadissentingopinionin
whichSTEWART,J.,joined,post,p.78.DOUGLAS,J.,tooknopartintheconsiderationordecisionofthis
case.

TOP
Opinion

BRENNAN,J.,JudgmentoftheCourt

MR.JUSTICEBRENNANannouncedthejudgmentoftheCourtandanopinioninwhichTHECHIEF
JUSTICEandMR.JUSTICEBLACKMUNjoin.

InaseriesofcasesbeginningwithNewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/376/254/)(1964),theCourthasconsideredthelimitations
uponstatelibellawsimposedbytheconstitutionalguaranteesoffreedomofspeechandofthepress.New
YorkTimesheldthatinacivillibelactionbyapublicofficialagainstanewspaperthoseguaranteesrequired
clearandconvincingproofthatadefamatoryfalsehoodallegedaslibelwasutteredwith"knowledgethatit
wasfalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetheritwasfalseornot."Id.at280.Thesamerequirementwas
laterheldtoapplyto"publicfigures"whosuedinlibelonthebasisofallegeddefamatoryfalsehoods.The
severalcasesconsideredsinceNewYorkTimesinvolvedactionsof"publicofficials"or"publicfigures,"
usually,butnotalways,againstnewspapersormagazines.[n1]Commontoallthecaseswasa[p31]
defamatoryfalsehoodinthereportofaneventof"publicorgeneralinterest."[n2]Theinstantcasepresents
thequestionwhethertheNewYorkTimes'"knowingorrecklessfalsitystandard"appliesinastatecivillibel
actionbroughtnotbya"publicofficial"ora"publicfigure,"butbyaprivateindividualforadefamatory
falsehoodutteredinanewsbroadcastbyaradiostationabouttheindividual'sinvolvementinaneventof
publicorgeneral[p32]interest.[n3]TheDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofPennsylvaniaheldthatthe
NewYorkTimesstandarddidnotapply.andthatPennsylvanialawdeterminedrespondent'sliabilityinthis
diversitycase,289F.Supp.737(1968).TheCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuitheldthattheNewYork
Timesstandarddidapply,andreversedthejudgmentfordamagesawardedtopetitionerbythejury.415
F.2d892(1969).Wegrantedcertiorari,397U.S.904
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/397/904/)(1970).WeagreewiththeCourtofAppeals,and
affirmthatcourt'sjudgment.

In1963,petitionerwasadistributorofnudistmagazinesinthePhiladelphiametropolitanarea.Duringthe
fallofthatyear,inresponsetocitizencomplaints,theSpecialInvestigationsSquadofthePhiladelphia
PoliceDepartmentinitiatedaseriesofenforcementactionsunderthecity'sobscenitylaws.Thepolice,
underthecommandofCaptainFerguson,purchasedvariousmagazinesfrommorethan20newsstands
throughoutthecity.BaseduponCaptainFerguson'sdeterminationthatthemagazineswereobscene,[n4]
police,onOctober1,1963,arrestedmostofthenewsstandoperators[n5]onchargesofsellingobscene
material.Whilethepoliceweremakinganarrestatonenewsstand,petitionerarrivedtodeliversomeofhis
nudistmagazines,andwasimmediatelyarrested[p33]alongwiththenewsboy.[n6]Threedayslater,on

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 2/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

October4,thepoliceobtainedawarranttosearchpetitioner'shomeandtherentedbarnheusedasa
warehouse,andseizedtheinventoryofmagazinesandbooksfoundattheselocations.Uponlearningof
theseizures,petitioner,whohadbeenreleasedonbailafterhisfirstarrest,surrenderedtothepoliceand
wasarrestedforasecondtime.

Followingthesecondarrest,CaptainFergusontelephonedrespondent'sradiostationWIPandanother
localradiostation,awireservice,andalocalnewspapertoinformthemoftheraidonpetitioner'shomeand
ofhisarrest.WIPbroadcastnewsreportseveryhalfhourtothePhiladelphiametropolitanarea.Thesenews
programsraneitherfiveortenminutes,andgenerallycontainedfromsixtotwentydifferentitemsthat
averagedaboutthirtysecondseach.WIP's6p.m.broadcastonOctober4,1963,includedthefollowing
item:

CityCracksDownonSmutMerchants

TheSpecialInvestigationsSquadraidedthehomeofGeorgeRosenbloominthe1800blockofVestaStreet
thisafternoon.Policeconfiscated1,000allegedlyobscenebooksatRosenbloom'shomeandarrestedhim
onchargesofpossessionofobsceneliterature.TheSpecialInvestigationsSquadalsoraidedabarninthe
20HundredblockofWelshRoadnearBustletonAvenueandconfiscated3,000obscenebooks.Capt.
FergusonsayshebelievestheyhavehitthesupplyofamaindistributorofobscenematerialinPhiladelphia.
[p34]

Thisreportwasrebroadcastinsubstantiallythesameformat6:30p.m.,butat8p.m.,whentheitemwas
broadcastforthethirdtime,WIPcorrectedthethirdsentencetoread"reportedlyobscene."Newsof
petitioner'sarrestwasbroadcastfivemoretimesinthefollowingtwelvehours,buteachreportdescribed
theseizedbooksas"allegedly"or"reportedly"obscene.FromOctober5toOctober21,WIPbroadcastno
furtherreportsrelatingtopetitioner.

OnOctober16,petitionerbroughtanactioninFederalDistrictCourtagainstvariouscityandpoliceofficials
andagainstseverallocalnewsmedia.[n7]Thesuitallegedthatthemagazinespetitionerdistributedwere
notobscene,andsoughtinjunctivereliefprohibitingfurtherpoliceinterferencewithhisbusiness,aswellas
furtherpublicityoftheearlierarrests.Thesecondseriesofallegedlydefamatorybroadcastsrelatedto
WIP'snewsreportsofthelawsuit.ThereweretenbroadcastsonOctober21,twoonOctober25,andone
onNovember1.Nonementionedpetitionerbyname.Thefirst,at6:30a.m.onOctober21,waspretty
muchlikethosethatfollowed:

FederalDistrictJudgeLord,willhearargumentstodayfromtwopublishersandadistributorallseekingan
injunctionagainstPhiladelphiaPoliceCommissionerHowardLeary...DistrictAttorneyJamesC.Crumlish.
..alocaltelevisionstationandanewspaper...orderingthemtolayoffthesmutliteratureracket.

Thegirliebookpeddlerssaythepolicecrackdown[p35]andcontinuedreferencetotheirborderline
literatureassmutorfilthishurtingtheirbusiness.JudgeLordrefusedtoissueatemporaryinjunctionwhen
hewasfirstapproached.Todayhe'lldecidetheissue.Itwillsetaprecedent...andiftheinjunctionisnot
granted...itcouldsignalanevenmoreintenseefforttoridthecityofpornography.

OnOctober27,petitionerwenttoWIP'sstudiosafterhearingfromafriendthatthestationhadbroadcast
newsabouthislawsuit.Usingalobbytelephonetotalkwithaparttimenewscaster,petitionerinquiredwhat
storiesWIPhadbroadcastabouthim.Thenewscasteraskedhimtobemorespecificaboutdatesand
times.PetitionerthenaskedforthenoonnewsbroadcastonOctober21,1963,whichthenewscasterread
tohimoverthephoneitwassimilartotheabove6:30a.m.broadcast.Accordingtopetitioner,theensuing
interchangewasbrief.Petitionertoldthenewscasterthathismagazineswere"foundtobecompletelylegal
andlegitimatebytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt."Whenthenewscasterrepliedthedistrictattorneyhad
saidthemagazineswereobscene,petitionercounteredthathehadapublicstatementofthedistrict
attorneydeclaringthemagazineslegal.Atthatpoint,petitionertestified,"thetelephoneconversationwas
terminated....Hejusthungup."Petitionerapparentlymadenorequestforaretractionorcorrection,and

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 3/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

nonewasforthcoming.WIP'sfinalreportonpetitioner'slawsuittheonlyoneafterpetitioner's
unsatisfactoryconversationatthestationoccurredonNovember1afterthestationhadcheckedthestory
withthejudgeinvolved.[n8][p36]

II

InMay,1964ajuryacquittedpetitionerinstatecourtofthecriminalobscenitychargesunderinstructionsof
thetrialjudgethat,asamatteroflaw,thenudistmagazinesdistributedbypetitionerwerenotobscene.
Followinghisacquittal,petitionerfiledthisdiversityactioninDistrictCourtseekingdamagesunder
Pennsylvania'slibellaw.PetitionerallegedthatWIP'sunqualifiedcharacterizationofthebooksseizedas
"obscene"inthe6and6:30p.m.broadcastsofOctober4,describinghisarrest,constitutedlibelperseand
wasprovedfalsebypetitioner'ssubsequentacquittal.Inaddition,heallegedthatthebroadcastsinthe
secondseriesdescribinghiscourtsuitforinjunctivereliefwerealsofalseanddefamatoryinthatWIP
characterizedpetitionerandhisbusinessassociatesas"smutdistributors"and"girliebookpeddlers"and,
further,falselycharacterizedthesuitasanattempttoforcethedefendants"tolayoffthesmutliterature
racket."

Atthetrial,WIP'sdefensesweretruthandprivilege.WIP'snewsdirectortestifiedthathiseightmanstaffof
reporterspreparedtheirownnewscastsandbroadcasttheirmaterialthemselves,andthatmaterialforthe
newsprogramsusuallycameeitherfromthewireservicesorfromtelephonetips.Noneofthewritersor
broadcastersinvolvedinpreparingthebroadcastsinthiscasetestified.Thenewsdirector'srecollectionwas
thattheprimarysourceofinformationforthefirstseriesofbroadcasts[p37]aboutpetitioner'sarrestwas
CaptainFerguson,butthat,tothedirector'sknowledge,thestationdidnothaveanyfurtherverification.
CaptainFergusontestifiedthathehadinformedWIPandothermediaofthepoliceaction,andthatWIPhad
accuratelybroadcastwhathetoldthestation.TheevidenceregardingWIP'sinvestigationofpetitioner's
lawsuitinthesecondseriesofbroadcastswasevenmoresparse.Thenewsdirectortestifiedthathewas
"surewewouldcheckwiththeDistrictAttorney'sofficealsoandwiththePoliceDepartment,"but"itwould
bedifficultformetospecificallystatewhatadditionalcorroborationwehad."Ingeneral,hetestifiedthat
WIP'shalfhourdeadlinesrequiredittorelyonwireservicecopyandoralreportsfrompreviouslyreliable
sources,subjecttothegeneralpolicythat"wewillcontactasmanysourcesaswepossiblycanonanykind
ofastory."

III

Pennsylvania'slibellawtracksalmostpreciselytheRestatement(First)ofTortsprovisionsonthesubject.
Pennsylvaniaholdsactionableanyunprivileged"malicious"[n9]publicationofmatterwhichtendstoharma
person'sreputationandexposehimtopublichatred,contempt,orridicule.Schnabelv.Meredith,378Pa.
609,107A.2d860(1954)RestatementofTorts558,559(1938).Pennsylvanialawrecognizestruthas
acompletedefensetoalibelaction.Schonekv.WJAC,Inc.,436Pa.78,84,258A.2d504,507(1969)
RestatementofTorts582.Itrecognizesanabsoluteimmunityfordefamatorystatementsmadebyhigh
stateofficials,evenifpublishedwithanimpropermotive,actualmalice,orknowingfalsity.Montgomeryv.
Philadelphia,392Pa.178,140A.2d100(1958)RestatementofTorts591,[p38]anditrecognizesa
conditionalprivilegefornewsmediatoreportjudicial,administrative,orlegislativeproceedingsifthe
accountisfairandaccurate,andnotpublishedsolelyforthepurposeofcausingharmtotheperson
defamed,eventhoughtheofficialinformationisfalseorinaccurate.Sciandrav.Lynett,409Pa.595,600
601,187A.2d586,588589(1963)RestatementofTorts611.Theconditionalprivilegeofthenews
mediamaybedefeated,however,by

"wantofreasonablecareanddiligencetoascertainthetruth,beforegivingcurrencytoanuntrue
communication."Thefailuretoemploysuch"reasonablecareanddiligence"candestroyaprivilegewhich
otherwisewouldprotecttheuttererofthecommunication.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 4/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

Purcellv.WestinghouseBroadcastingCo.,411Pa.167,179,191A.2d662,668(1963).Pennsylvaniahas
alsoenactedverbatimtheRestatement'sprovisionsonburdenofproof,whichplacetheburdenofprooffor
theaffirmativedefensesoftruthandprivilegeuponthedefendant.[n10][p39]

Atthecloseoftheevidence,theDistrictCourtdeniedrespondent'smotionforadirectedverdictand
chargedthejury,inconformitywithPennsylvanialaw,thatfourfindingswerenecessarytoreturnaverdict
forpetitioner:(1)thatoneormoreofthebroadcastsweredefamatory(2)thatareasonablelistenerwould
concludethatthedefamatorystatementreferredtopetitioner(3)thatWIPhadforfeiteditsprivilegeto
reportofficialproceedingsfairlyandaccurately,eitherbecauseitintendedtoinjuretheplaintiffpersonallyor
becauseitexercisedtheprivilegeunreasonablyandwithoutreasonablecareand(4)thatthereportingwas
false.Thejurywasinstructedthatpetitionerhadtheburdenofproofonthefirstthreeissues,butthat
respondenthadtheburdenofprovingthatthereportingwastrue.Thejurywasfurtherinstructedthat,"asa
matteroflaw,"petitionerwasnotentitledtoactualdamagesclaimedforlossofbusiness"notbecauseit
wouldn'tordinarilybe,butbecausetherehasbeenevidencethatthissamesubjectmatterwasthesubject"
ofbroadcastsoverothertelevisionandradiostationsandofnewspaperreports,"soiftherewasany
businesslost...wehavenoproof...that[it]resulteddirectlyfromthebroadcastsbyWIP...."App.331a.
Onthequestionofpunitivedamages,thejudgegavethefollowinginstruction:

[I]fyoufindthatthispublicationarosefromabadmotiveormalicetowardtheplaintiff,orifyoufindthatit
waspublishedwithrecklessindifferencetothetruth,ifyoufindthatitwasnottrue,youwouldbeentitledto
awardpunitivedamages,andpunitivedamagesareawardedasadeterrentfromfutureconductofthe
samesort.

Theyreallyareawardedonlyforoutrageousconduct,asIhavesaid,withabadmotiveorwithreckless
disregardoftheinterestsofothers,andbefore[p40]youwouldawardpunitivedamages,youmustfindthat
thesebroadcastswerepublishedwithabadmotiveorwithrecklessdisregardoftherightsofothers,or
recklessindifferencetotherightsofothers....

Thejuryreturnedaverdictforpetitionerandawarded$25,000ingeneraldamages,and$725,000in
punitivedamages.TheDistrictCourtreducedthepunitivedamagesawardto$250,000onremittitur,but
deniedrespondent'smotionforjudgmentn.o.v.Inreversing,theCourtofAppealsemphasizedthatthe
broadcastsconcernedmattersofpublicinterest,andthattheyinvolved"hotnews"preparedunderdeadline
pressure.TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthat

thefactthatplaintiffwasnotapublicfigurecannotbeaccordeddecisiveimportanceiftherecognized
importantguaranteesoftheFirstAmendmentaretobeadequatelyimplemented.

415F.2dat896.Forthatreason,thecourtheldthattheNewYorkTimesstandardappliedand,further,
directedthatjudgmentbeenteredforrespondent,holdingthat,asamatteroflaw,petitioner'sevidencedid
notmeetthatstandard.

IV

Petitionerconcedesthatthepolicecampaigntoenforcetheobscenitylawswasanissueofpublicinterest,
and,therefore,thattheconstitutionalguaranteesforfreedomofspeechandpressimposedlimitsupon
Pennsylvania'spowertoapplyitslibellawstocompelrespondenttocompensatehimindamagesforthe
allegeddefamatoryfalsehoodsbroadcastabouthisinvolvement.Asnoted,thenarrowquestionheraisesis
whether,becauseheisnota"publicofficial"ora"publicfigure,"butaprivateindividual,thoselimits
requiredthatheprovethatthefalsehoodsresultedfromafailureofrespondenttoexercisereasonable
care,orrequiredthatheprovethat[p41]thefalsehoodswerebroadcastwithknowledgeoftheirfalsityor
withrecklessdisregardofwhethertheywerefalseornot.Thatquestionmustbeansweredagainstthe
backgroundofthefunctionsoftheconstitutionalguaranteesforfreedomofexpression.Rosenblattv.Baer,
383U.S.75(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/383/75/),at8485,n.10(1966).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 5/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

SelfgovernanceintheUnitedStatespresupposesfarmorethanknowledgeanddebateaboutthestrictly
officialactivitiesofvariouslevelsofgovernment.Thecommitmentofthecountrytotheinstitutionofprivate
property,protectedbytheDueProcessandJustCompensationClausesintheConstitution,placesin
privatehandsvastareasofeconomicandsocialpowerthatvitallyaffectthenatureandqualityoflifeinthe
Nation.Oureffortstoliveandworktogetherinafreesocietynotcompletelydominatedbygovernmental
regulationnecessarilyencompassfarmorethanpoliticsinanarrowsense."Theguaranteesforspeechand
pressarenotthepreserveofpoliticalexpressionorcommentuponpublicaffairs."Time,Inc.v.Hill,385
U.S.374(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/385/374/),388(1967).

Freedomofdiscussion,ifitwouldfulfillitshistoricfunctioninthisnation,mustembraceallissuesabout
whichinformationisneededorappropriatetoenablethemembersofsocietytocopewiththeexigenciesof
theirperiod.

Thornhillv.Alabama,310U.S.88(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/310/88/),102(1940).
Althoughthelimitationsuponcivillibelactions,firstheldinNewYorkTimestoberequiredbytheFirst
Amendment,wereappliedinthatcaseinthecontextofdefamatoryfalsehoodsabouttheofficialconductof
apublicofficial,laterdecisionshavedisclosedtheartificiality,intermsofthepublic'sinterest,ofasimple
distinctionbetween"public"and"private"individualsorinstitutions:

Increasinglyinthiscountry,thedistinctionsbetweengovernmentalandprivatesectorsareblurred....In
manysituations,policydeterminations[p42]whichtraditionallywerechanneledthroughformalpolitical
institutionsarenoworiginatedandimplementedthroughacomplexarrayofboards,committees,
commissions,corporations,andassociations,someonlylooselyconnectedwiththeGovernment.This
blendingofpositionsandpowerhasalsooccurredinthecaseofindividualssothatmanywhodonothold
publicofficeatthemomentareneverthelessintimatelyinvolvedintheresolutionofimportantpublic
questions....

...Ourcitizenryhasalegitimateandsubstantialinterestintheconductofsuchpersons,andfreedomof
thepresstoengageinuninhibiteddebateabouttheirinvolvementinpublicissuesandeventsisascrucial
asitisinthecaseof"publicofficials."

CurtisPublishingCo.v.Butts,388U.S.130(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/388/130/),163
164(1967)(Warren,C.J.,concurringinresult).

Moreover,theconstitutionalprotectionwasnotintendedtobelimitedtomattersbearingbroadlyonissues
ofresponsiblegovernment.

[T]heFounders...feltthatafreepresswouldadvance"truth,science,morality,andartsingeneral,"as
wellasresponsiblegovernment.

Id.at147(opinionofHARLAN,J.).CommentsinothercasesreiteratethisjudgmentthattheFirst
Amendmentextendstomyriadmattersofpublicinterest.InTime,Inc.v.Hill,supra,wehad"nodoubtthat
the...openingofanewplaylinkedtoanactualincident,isamatterofpublicinterest,"385U.S.at388,
whichwasentitledtoconstitutionalprotection.Buttsheldthatanalleged"fix"ofacollegefootballgamewas
apublicissue.AssociatedPressv.Walker,388U.S.130
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/388/130/)(1967),acompanioncasetoButts,established
thatthepublichadasimilarinterestintheeventsandpersonalitiesinvolvedinfederaleffortstoenforcea
courtdecreeorderingtheenrollmentofaNegrostudentintheUniversityofMississippi.Thus,thesecases
underscorethevitality,as[p43]wellasthescope,ofthe"profoundnationalcommitmenttotheprinciple
thatdebateonpublicissuesshouldbeuninhibited,robust,andwideopen."NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,
376U.S.at270271(emphasisadded).

Ifamatterisasubjectofpublicorgeneralinterest,itcannotsuddenlybecomelesssomerelybecausea
privateindividualisinvolved,orbecause,insomesense,theindividualdidnot"voluntarily"chooseto
becomeinvolved.Thepublic'sprimaryinterestisintheeventthepublicfocusisontheconductofthe

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 6/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

participantandthecontent,effect,andsignificanceoftheconduct,nottheparticipant'sprioranonymityor
notoriety.[n11]Thepresentcaseillustratesthepoint.Thecommunityhasavitalinterestintheproper
enforcementofitscriminallaws,particularlyinanareasuchasobscenity,whereanumberofhighly
importantvaluesarepotentiallyinconflict:thepublichasaninterestbothinseeingthatthecriminallawis
adequatelyenforcedandinassuringthatthelawisnotusedunconstitutionallytosuppressfreeexpression.
Whetherthepersoninvolvedisafamouslargescalemagazinedistributorora"private"businessman
runningacornernewsstandhasnorelevanceinascertainingwhetherthepublichasaninterestinthe
issue.Wehonorthecommitmenttorobustdebateonpublicissues,whichisembodiedintheFirst
Amendment,[p44]byextendingconstitutionalprotectiontoalldiscussionandcommunicationinvolving
mattersofpublicorgeneralconcern,withoutregardtowhetherthepersonsinvolvedarefamousor
anonymous.[n12]

OurBrotherWHITEagreesthattheprotectionaffordedbytheFirstAmendmentdependsuponwhetherthe
issueinvolvedinthepublicationisanissueofpublicorgeneralconcern.Hewould,however,confineour
holdingtothesituationraisedbythefactsinthiscase,thatis,limitittoissuesinvolving"officialactionsof
publicservants."Inourview,thatmightbemisleading.Itisclearthattherehasemergedfromourcases
decidedsinceNewYorkTimestheconceptthattheFirstAmendment'simpactuponstatelibellawsderives
notsomuchfromwhethertheplaintiffisa"publicofficial,""publicfigure,"or"privateindividual,"asitderives
fromthequestionwhethertheallegedlydefamatorypublicationconcernsamatterofpublicorgeneral
interest.SeeT.Emerson,TheSystemofFreedomofExpression531532,540(1970).Inthat
circumstance,wethinkthetimehascomeforthrightlytoannouncethatthedeterminantwhethertheFirst
Amendmentappliestostatelibelactionsiswhethertheutteranceinvolvedconcernsanissueofpublicor
generalconcern,albeitleavingthe[p45]delineationofthereachofthattermtofuturecases.Asour
BrotherWHITEobserves,thatisnotaprobleminthiscase,sincepolicearrestofapersonfordistributing
allegedlyobscenemagazinesclearlyconstitutesanissueofpublicorgeneralinterest.[n13]

Weturnthentothequestiontobedecided.Petitioner'sargumentthattheConstitutionshouldbeheldto
requirethattheprivateindividualproveonlythatthepublisherfailedtoexercise"reasonablecare"in
publishingdefamatoryfalsehoodsproceedsalongtwolines.First,hearguesthattheprivateindividual,
unlikethepublicfigure,doesnothaveaccesstothemediatocounterthedefamatorymaterial,andthatthe
privateindividual,unlikethepublicfigure,hasnotassumedtheriskofdefamationbythrustinghimselfinto
thepublicarena.Second,petitionerfocusesontheimportantvaluesservedbythelawofdefamationin
preventingandredressingattacksuponreputation.

Wehaverecognizedtheforceofpetitioner'sarguments,Time,Inc.v.Hill,supra,at391,andweadhereto
thecautionexpressedinthatcaseagainst"blindapplication"oftheNewYorkTimesstandard.Id.at390.
Analysisoftheparticularfactorsinvolved,however,convincesusthatpetitioner'sargumentscannotbe
reconciledwiththepurposesoftheFirstAmendment,withourcases,andwiththetraditionaldoctrinesof
libellawitself.Drawingadistinctionbetween"public"[p46]and"private"figuresmakesnosenseintermsof
theFirstAmendmentguarantees.[n14]TheNewYorkTimesstandardwasappliedtolibelofapublicofficial
orpublicfiguretogiveeffecttotheAmendment'sfunctiontoencourageventilationofpublicissues,not
becausethepublicofficialhasanylessinterestinprotectinghisreputationthananindividualinprivatelife.
Whiletheargumentthatpublicfiguresneedlessprotectionbecausetheycancommandmediaattentionto
countercriticismmaybetrueforsomeveryprominentpeople,eventhen,itistherarecasewherethe
denialovertakestheoriginalcharge.Denials,retractions,andcorrectionsarenot"hot"news,andrarely
receivetheprominenceoftheoriginalstory.Whenthepublicofficialorpublicfigureisaminorfunctionary,
orhasleftthepositionthatputhiminthepubliceye,seeRosenblattv.Baer,supra,theargumentlosesall
ofitsforce.Inthevastmajorityoflibelsinvolvingpublicofficialsorpublicfigures,theabilitytorespond
throughthemediawilldependonthesamecomplexfactoronwhichtheabilityofaprivateindividual
depends:theunpredictableeventofthemedia'scontinuinginterestinthestory.Thus,theunproved,and
highlyimprobable,generalizationthatanasyetundefinedclassof"publicfigures"involvedinmattersof
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 7/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

publicconcernwillbebetterabletorespond[p47]throughthemediathanprivateindividualsalsoinvolved
insuchmattersseemstooinsubstantialareedonwhichtorestaconstitutionaldistinction.Furthermore,in
FirstAmendmentterms,thecureseemsfarworsethanthedisease.IftheStatesfearthatprivatecitizens
willnotbeabletorespondadequatelytopublicityinvolvingthem,thesolutionliesinthedirectionof
ensuringtheirabilitytorespond,ratherthaninstiflingpublicdiscussionofmattersofpublicconcern.[n15]

FurtherreflectionovertheyearssinceNewYorkTimeswasdecidedpersuadesusthattheviewofthe
"publicofficial"or"publicfigure"asassumingtheriskofdefamationbyvoluntarilythrustinghimselfintothe
publiceyebearslittlerelationshipeithertothevaluesprotectedbytheFirstAmendmentortothenatureof
oursociety.Wehaverecognizedthat"[e]xposureoftheselftoothersinvaryingdegreesisaconcomitantof
lifeinacivilizedcommunity."Time,Inc.v.Hill,[p48]supraat388.Voluntarilyornot,weareall"public"men
tosomedegree.Conversely,someaspectsofthelivesofeventhemostpublicmenfalloutsidetheareaof
mattersofpublicorgeneralconcern.Seen.12,supraGriswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.479
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/381/479/)(1965).[n16]Thus,theideathatcertain"public"
figureshavevoluntarilyexposedtheirentirelivestopublicinspection,whileprivateindividualshavekept
theirscarefullyshroudedfrompublicviewis,atbest,alegalfiction.Inanyevent,suchadistinctioncould
easilyproducetheparadoxicalresultofdampeningdiscussionofissuesofpublicorgeneralconcern
becausetheyhappentoinvolveprivatecitizenswhileextendingconstitutionalencouragementtodiscussion
ofaspectsofthelivesof"publicfigures"thatarenotintheareaofpublicorgeneralconcern.

Generalreferencestothevaluesprotectedbythelawoflibelconcealimportantdistinctions.Traditional
argumentssuggestthatlibellawprotectstwoseparateinterestsoftheindividual:first,hisdesiretopreserve
acertainprivacyaroundhispersonalityfromunwarrantedintrusion,and,second,adesiretopreservehis
publicgoodnameandreputation.SeeRosenblattv.Baer,383U.S.at92(STEWART,J.,concurring).The
individual'sinterestinprivacyinpreventingunwarrantedintrusionupontheprivateaspectsofhislifeis
notinvolvedinthiscase,orevenintheclassofcasesunderconsideration,since,byhypothesis,the
individualisinvolvedinmattersofpublicorgeneralconcern.[n17]In[p49]thepresentcase,however,
petitioner'sbusinessreputationisinvolved,andthustherelevantinterestsprotectedbystatelibellaware
petitioner'spublicreputationandgoodname.

Theseareimportantinterests.ConsonantwiththelibellawsofmostoftheStates,however,Pennsylvania's
libellawsubordinatestheseinterestsoftheindividualinanumberofcircumstances.Thus,highgovernment
officialsareimmunefromliabilityabsolutelyprivilegedeveniftheypublishdefamatorymaterialfroman
impropermotive,withactualmalice,andwithknowledgeofitsfalsity.Montgomeryv.Philadelphia,392Pa.
178,140A.2d100(1958).Thisabsoluteprivilegeattachestojudges,attorneysatlawinconnectionwitha
judicialproceeding,partiesandwitnessestojudicialproceedings,Congressmenandstatelegislators,and
highnationalandstateexecutiveofficials.RestatementofTorts585592.Moreover,aconditional
privilegeallowsnewspaperstoreportthefalsedefamatorymaterialoriginallypublishedundertheabsolute
privilegeslistedabove,ifdoneaccurately.Sciandrav.Linett,409Pa.595,187A.2d586(1963).

Evenwithoutthepresenceofaspecificconstitutionalcommand,therefore,Pennsylvanialibellaw
recognizesthatsociety'sinterestinprotectingindividualreputation[p50]oftenyieldstootherimportant
socialgoals.Inthiscase,thevitalneedsoffreedomofthepressandfreedomofspeechpersuadeusthat
allowingprivatecitizenstoobtaindamagejudgmentsonthebasisofajurydeterminationthatapublisher
probablyfailedtousereasonablecarewouldnotprovideadequate"breathingspace"forthesegreat
freedoms.Reasonablecareisan"elusivestandard"that

wouldplaceonthepresstheintolerableburdenofguessinghowajurymightassessthereasonablenessof
stepstakenbyittoverifytheaccuracyofeveryreferencetoaname,pictureorportrait.

Time,Inc.v.Hill,385U.S.at389.Fearofguessingwrongmustinevitablycauseselfcensorship,andthus
createthedangerthatthelegitimateutterancewillbedeterred.Cf.Speerv.Randall,357U.S.513
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/357/513/),526(1958).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 8/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

Moreover,weordinarilydecidecivillitigationbythepreponderanceoftheevidence.Indeed,thejudge
instructedthejurytodecidethepresentcasebythatstandard.Inthenormalcivilsuitwherethisstandardis
employed,

weviewitasnomoreseriousingeneralfortheretobeanerroneousverdictinthedefendant'sfavorthan
fortheretobeanerroneousverdictintheplaintiff'sfavor.

InreWinship,397U.S.358(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/397/358/),371(1970)(HARLAN,
J.,concurring).Inlibelcases,however,weviewanerroneousverdictfortheplaintiffasmostserious.Not
onlydoesitmulctthedefendantforaninnocentmisstatementthethreequartermilliondollarjuryverdict
inthiscasecouldrestonsuchanerrorbutthepossibilityofsucherror,evenbeyondthevaguenessof
thenegligencestandarditself,wouldcreateastrongimpetustowardselfcensorship,whichtheFirst
Amendmentcannottolerate.Thesedangersforfreedomofspeechandpressledustorejectthe
"reasonableman"standardofliabilityas"simplyinconsistent"withournationalcommitmentundertheFirst
Amendmentwhensoughttobeappliedtothe[p51]conductofapoliticalcampaign.MonitorPatriotCo.v.
Roy,401U.S.265(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/401/265/),276(1971).Thesame
considerationsleadustorejectthatstandardhere.

Weareawarethatthepresshas,onoccasion,grosslyabusedthefreedomitisgivenbytheConstitution.
Allmustdeploresuchexcesses.Inanidealworld,theresponsibilityofthepresswouldmatchthefreedom
andpublictrustgivenit.Butfromtheearliestdaysofourhistory,thisfreesociety,dependentasitisforits
survivaluponavigorousfreepress,hastoleratedsomeabuse.In1799,JamesMadisonmadethepointin
quoting(andadopting)JohnMarshall'sanswertoTalleyrand'scomplaintsaboutAmericannewspapers,
AmericanStatePapers,2ForeignRelations196(U.S.Cong.1832):

"AmongthoseprinciplesdeemedsacredinAmerica,amongthosesacredrightsconsideredasformingthe
bulwarkoftheirliberty,whichtheGovernmentcontemplateswithawfulreverenceandwouldapproachonly
withthemostcautiouscircumspection,thereisnooneofwhichtheimportanceismoredeeplyimpressed
onthepublicmindthanthelibertyofthepress.Thatthislibertyisoftencarriedtoexcess,thatithas
sometimesdegeneratedintolicentiousness,isseenandlamented,buttheremedyhasnotyetbeen
discovered.Perhapsitisanevilinseparablefromthegoodwithwhichitisalliedperhapsitisashootwhich
cannotbestrippedfromthestalkwithoutwoundingvitallytheplantfromwhichitistorn.Howeverdesirable
thosemeasuresmightbewhichmightcorrectwithoutenslavingthepress,theyhaveneveryetbeen
devisedinAmerica."

6WritingsofJamesMadison,17901802,p.336(G.Hunted.1906)(emphasisinoriginal).

ThisCourthasrecognizedthisimperative:

[T]oinsuretheascertainmentandpublicationofthetruthaboutpublicaffairs,itisessentialthattheFirst
Amendment[p52]protectsomeerroneouspublicationsaswellastrueones.

St.Amantv.Thompson,390U.S.727(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/390/727/),732
(1968).Wethusholdthatalibelaction,ashere,byaprivateindividualagainstalicensedradiostationfora
defamatoryfalsehoodinanewscastrelatingtohisinvolvementinaneventofpublicorgeneralconcernmay
besustainedonlyuponclearandconvincingproofthatthedefamatoryfalsehoodwaspublishedwith
knowledgethatitwasfalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetheritwasfalseornot.[n18]Calculated
falsehood,ofcourse,fallsoutside"thefruitfulexerciseoftherightoffreespeech."Garrisonv.Louisiana,
379U.S.64(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/379/64/),75(1964).

OurBrothersHARLANandMARSHALLrejectthe"knowingorrecklessfalsehoodstandard"infavorofatest
thatwouldrequire,atleast,thatthepersondefamedestablishthatthepublishernegligentlyfailedto
ascertainthetruthofhisstorytheywouldalsolimitanyrecoveryto"actual"damages.Forthereasonswe
havestated,thenegligencestandardgivesinsufficientbreathingspacetoFirstAmendmentvalues.Limiting
recoverytoactualdamageshasthesamedefects.Inthefirstinstance,thatstandard,too,leavestheFirst

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 9/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

Amendmentinsufficientelbowroomwithinwhichtofunction.Itisnotsimplythepossibilityofajudgmentfor
damagesthatresultsinselfcensorship.Theverypossibilityofhavingtoengageinlitigation,anexpensive
andprotractedprocess,[p53]isthreatenoughtocausediscussionanddebateto"steerfarwiderofthe
unlawfulzone,"therebykeepingprotecteddiscussionfrompubliccognizance.Speiserv.Randall,357U.S.
at526.Cf.BlonderTongueLaboratories,Inc.v.UniversityofIllinoisFoundation,402U.S.313
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/402/313/),334339(1971).Too,asmallnewspapersuffers
equallyfromasubstantialdamageaward,whetherthelabeloftheawardbe"actual"or"punitive."Thereal
thrustofBrothersHARLAN'sandMARSHALL'sposition,however,istheirassertionthattheirproposalwill
not"constitutionalize"thefactfindingprocess.Butthisclearlyisnotthewaytheirtestwouldworkinpractice.
Theirapproachmeansonlythatfactfindingwillshiftfromaninquiryintowhetherthedefamatorystatements
wereknowinglyorrecklesslyutteredtotheinquirywhethertheywerenegligentlyuttered,andifso,toan
inquirywhetherplaintiffsuffered"actual"damages.Thislatterinquirywillinvolvejudgesevenmoredeeply
infactfinding.Wouldthemereannouncementbyastatelegislaturethatembarrassmentandpainand
sufferingaremeasurableactuallossesmeanthatsuchdamagesmaybeawardedinlibelactions?No
matterhowtheproblemisapproached,thisCourtwouldultimatelyhavetofashionconstitutionaldefinitions
of"negligence"andof"actualdamages."

Asidefromtheseparticularizedconsiderations,wehaverepeatedlyrecognizedthatcourtsmaynotavoidan
excursionintofactfindinginthisareasimplybecauseitistimeconsumingordifficult.Westatedin
Pennekampv.Florida,328U.S.331(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/328/331/),335(1946),
that:

TheConstitutionhasimposeduponthisCourtfinalauthoritytodeterminethemeaningandapplicationof
thosewordsofthatinstrumentwhichrequireinterpretationtoresolvejudicialissues.Withthatresponsibility,
wearecompelledtoexamineforourselvesthestatementsinissueandthecircumstances[p54]under
whichtheyweremadetoseewhetherornotthey...areofacharacterwhichtheprinciplesoftheFirst
Amendment,asadoptedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,protect.

(Footnoteomitted.)Clearly,then,thisCourthasan"obligationtotestchallengedjudgmentsagainstthe
guaranteesoftheFirstandFourteenthAmendments,"and,indoingso,"thisCourtcannotavoidmakingan
independentconstitutionaljudgmentonthefactsofthecase."Jacobellisv.Ohio,378U.S.184
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/378/184/),190(1964).ThesimplefactisthatFirst
Amendmentquestionsof"constitutionalfact"compelthisCourt'sdenovoreview.SeeEdwardsv.South
Carolina,372U.S.229(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/372/229/),235(1963)Blackburnv.
Alabama,361U.S.199(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/361/199/),205n.5(1960).

VI

Petitionerarguesthattheinstructionsonpunitivedamageseithercuredorrenderedharmlessthe
instructionspermittinganawardofgeneraldamagesbasedonafindingoffailureofWIPtoexercise
reasonablecare.Wehavedoubtsofthemeritsofthepremise,[n19]buteven[p55]assumingthat
instructionsweregivensatisfyingthestandardofknowingorrecklessfalsity,theevidencewasinsufficientto
sustainanawardforthatpetitionerunderthatstandard.Inthesecases,our

dutyisnotlimitedtotheelaborationofconstitutionalprincipleswemustalso,inpropercases,reviewthe
evidencetomakecertainthatthoseprincipleshavebeenconstitutionallyapplied.

NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.at285.Ourindependentanalysisoftherecordleadsustoagree
withtheCourtofAppealsthatnoneoftheproofs,consideredeithersinglyorcumulatively,satisfiesthe
constitutionalstandardwiththeconvincingclaritynecessarytoraiseajuryquestionwhetherthedefamatory
falsehoodswerebroadcastwithknowledgethattheywerefalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetherthey
werefalseornot.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 10/32
2/25/2016 Rosenbloomv.Metromedia|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute

TheevidencemoststronglysupportingpetitioneristhatconcerninghisvisittoWIP'sstudiowhereapart
timenewscasterhungupthetelephonewhenpetitionerdisputedthenewscaster'sstatementthatthe
DistrictAttorneyhadcharacterizedpetitioner'smagazinesasobscene.Thiscontactoccurred,however,
afterallbutoneofthesecondseriesofbroadcastshadbeenaired.Theincidenthasnoprobativevalue
insofarasitbearsonpetitioner'scaseastothefirstseriesofbroadcasts.Thatportionofpetitioner'scase
wasbasedupontheomissionfromthefirsttwobroadcastsat6and6:30p.m.onOctober4oftheword
"alleged"precedingacharacterizationofthemagazinesdistributedbypetitioner.Butthatomissionwas
correctedwiththe8p.m.broadcast,andwasnotrepeatedinthefivebroadcaststhatfollowed.Andwe
agreewiththeanalysisoftheCourtofAppealsthatledthatcourt,andleadsus,toconcludethatthe
episodefailedtoprovideevidencesatisfyingtheNewYorkTimesstandardinsofarasitboreonpetitioner's
[p56]casebaseduponthebroadcastsonandafterOctober21concerningpetitioner'slawsuit:

Onlyonebroadcasttookplaceafterthisconversation.Itisattackedonthegroundthatitcontainsan
inaccuratestatementconcerningplaintiff'sinjunctionactioninthatitStatedthatthedistrictattorney
consideredplaintiff'spublicationstobesmutandimmoralliterature.Thetranscriptofthetestimonyshows
thatplaintiff'sownattorney,whenquestioningdefendant'representativeconcerningtheallegedly
defamatoryportionofthelastbroadcast,saidthathewasnotquestioningits"accuracy."Furthermore,his
examinationofthesamewitnessbroughtoutthatdefendant'srepresentativeconfirmedthestorywiththe
judgeinvolvedbeforethebroadcastwasmade.Wethinkthattheepisodedescribedfailedtoprovide
evidenceofactualmalicewiththerequisiteconvincingclaritytocreateajuryissueunderfederalstandards.

415F.2dat897.

PetitionerarguesfinallythatWIP'sfailuretocommunicatewithhimtolearnhissideofthecaseandto
obtainacopyofthemagazineforexamination,sufficedtosupportaverdictundertheNewYorkTimes
standard.Butour

casesareclearthatrecklessconductisnotmeasuredbywhetherareasonablyprudentmanwouldhave
published,orwouldhaveinvestigatedbeforepublishing.Theremustbesufficientevidencetopermitthe
conclusionthatthedefendantinfact,entertainedseriousdoubtsastothetruthofhispublication.

St.Amantv.Thompson,390U.S.at731.Respondentherereliedoninformationsuppliedbypoliceofficials.
Followingpetitioner'scomplaintabouttheaccuracyofthebroadcasts,WIPcheckeditslastreportwiththe
judgewhopresidedinthecase.WhilewemayassumethattheDistrictCourtcorrectlyheldtobe
defamatory[p57]respondent'scharacterizationsofpetitioner'sbusinessas"thesmutliteratureracket,"and
ofthoseengagedinitas"girliebookpeddlers,"thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportaconclusion
thatrespondent"infactentertainedseriousdoubtsastothetruth"ofitsreports.

Affirmed.

MR.JUSTICEDouglastooknopartintheconsiderationordecisionofthiscase.

1.
See,e.g.,AssociatedPressv.Walker,388U.S.130
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/388/130/)(1967)(retiredArmygeneralagainstawire
service)CurtisPublishingCo.v.Butts,388U.S.130
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/388/130/)(1967)(formerfootballcoachagainstpublisherof
magazine)BeckleyNewspapersCorp.v.Hanks,389U.S.81
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/389/81/)(1967)(courtclerkagainstnewspaper)Greenbelt
PublishingAssn.v.Bresler,398U.S.6(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/398/6/)(1970)(state
representativeandrealestatedeveloperagainstpublisherofnewspaper)OcalaStarBannerCo.v.
Damron,401U.S.295(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/401/295/)(1971)(defeatedcandidate
fortaxassessoragainstpublisherofnewspaper)MonitorPatriotCo.v.Roy,401U.S.265
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29 11/32