in defamation suit against press, requirement that private citizen plaintiff show clear and convincing evidence of common law defamation elements, but not '"actual malice,"' strikes proper balance between protections under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and state policy favoring victim compensation
How later courts described this case
- in defamation suit against press, requirement that private citizen plaintiff show clear and convincing evidence of common law defamation elements, but not '"actual malice,"' strikes proper balance between protections under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and state policy favoring victim compensation
- statement defamatory only if the “substance of the statement” is likely to harm a reputation
- false statement and in dicta, “or would create a false impression in some material respect”
- New York Times v. Sullivan "clearly represents an attempt to reconcile the state’s interest in protecting the reputations of its citizens and the constitutional guarantee of a free and vibrant press”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Finley, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — I concur in the result which Stafford, C.J., would reach, namely, that except for the litigants, the majority decision should apply prospectively only.