stating that “defamation turns on whether the communication or publication tends, or is reasonably calculated, to cause harm to another’s reputation, and it is not necessary for plaintiff to prove that this was its actual result”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “defamation turns on whether the communication or publication tends, or is reasonably calculated, to cause harm to another’s reputation, and it is not necessary for plaintiff to prove that this was its actual result”
- explaining that a defamatory statement “must be taken as a whole, and in the sense in which it would be understood by readers to whom it was addressed”
- holding that "defamation turns on whether the communication or publication tends, or is reasonably calculated, to cause harm to another’s reputation.”
- stating that the law of libel protects the interest in reputation which is "inherent in the essential dignity and worth of every human being"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WRIGHT, Circuit Judge, with whom FAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurs (dissenting).
Since this case was tried and decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), I would remand it for retrial and reconsideration in the light of that case, compare Pauling v. National Review, Inc., 49 Misc.2d 975 , 269 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1966), and its possible effect on the traditional fair comment rule. See Note, The Scope of First Amendment Protection for Good-Faith Defamatory Error, 75 Yale L.J. 642 (1966).