Masson v. New Yorker, 501 U.S. 496 (1991)
Facts: After being fired from the Sigmund Freud Archives, Jeffery Masson interviewed with Janet Malcolm, a New Yorker magazine reporter. Malcolm’s article contained long quotes from Masson that presented Masson as conceded and condescending. Malcolm fabricated the more offensive quotes and Masson sued for Libel.
The Law: “The First Amendment protects authors and journalists who write about public figures by requiring a plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statements were made with what we have called ‘actual malice”. Masson needed to prove that misquotes had the falsity required to prove actual malice to proceed to a trial.
Litigation History: Masson, being a public figure, allowed the District Court to dismiss the case under the …show more content…
Outcome: Affirmed, 7-¬2. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and Justice Rehnquist, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor and Souter agreed. Justice White dissented and Justice Scalia agreed.
Rationale/Rule/Analysis: The court ruled that the Malcolm’s adlibbing were not protected by “free expression”. Direct quotations being altered to convey a different message is sufficient ground for a libel case. This case makes the standard less management because the court now has to decide if the altering of spoken words is in a defamatory manner or if the altering of the spoken words is different enough to be libelous.
Concurrence (White): Agreed with the result but argued that the New York Times protection should not “be extended to preclude liability for injury to reputation caused by employing words of double meaning, one of which is libelous, whenever the publisher claims in good faith to have intended the innocent meaning”. White feels that writers should not be held to the standard of their craft because readers may not understand the true meaning of a
Facts: After being fired from the Sigmund Freud Archives, Jeffery Masson interviewed with Janet Malcolm, a New Yorker magazine reporter. Malcolm’s article contained long quotes from Masson that presented Masson as conceded and condescending. Malcolm fabricated the more offensive quotes and Masson sued for Libel.
The Law: “The First Amendment protects authors and journalists who write about public figures by requiring a plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statements were made with what we have called ‘actual malice”. Masson needed to prove that misquotes had the falsity required to prove actual malice to proceed to a trial.
Litigation History: Masson, being a public figure, allowed the District Court to dismiss the case under the …show more content…
Outcome: Affirmed, 7-¬2. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and Justice Rehnquist, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor and Souter agreed. Justice White dissented and Justice Scalia agreed.
Rationale/Rule/Analysis: The court ruled that the Malcolm’s adlibbing were not protected by “free expression”. Direct quotations being altered to convey a different message is sufficient ground for a libel case. This case makes the standard less management because the court now has to decide if the altering of spoken words is in a defamatory manner or if the altering of the spoken words is different enough to be libelous.
Concurrence (White): Agreed with the result but argued that the New York Times protection should not “be extended to preclude liability for injury to reputation caused by employing words of double meaning, one of which is libelous, whenever the publisher claims in good faith to have intended the innocent meaning”. White feels that writers should not be held to the standard of their craft because readers may not understand the true meaning of a