Case name: Time, Inc. v. Hill

Opinion filed: 1967-01-09

Docket No.: 22

Citations:
• 17 L. Ed. 2d 456
• 87 S. Ct. 534
• 385 U.S. 374
• 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2991

Case holding summaries:
• defining actual malice as ‘knowledge that the statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth’
• declining to announce categorical rule on whether truthful publication of revelations so intimate as to shock community’s notions of decency could be constitutionally proscribed
• “[C]onstitutional guarantees can tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without significant impairment of their essential function.”
• “Factual error . . . [is] insufficient for an award of damages for false statements . . . .”
• "`That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment.'"
• comparing calculated falsehoods susceptible to sanctions with innocent or negligent misstatements
• widespread recognition of right to privacy
• same for claims regarding a right to privacy
• applying the "actual malice" standard to invasion of privacy claims by public figures
• stating that where a result of either negligence or actual malice “finds reasonable support in the record it is for the jury, not for this Court, to determine whether there was knowing or reckless falsehood” (citing New York Times, 376 U.S. at 284–285)
• "[b]ut the constitutional guarantees can tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without significant impairment of their essential function"
• declining to announce categorical rule on whether truthful publication of revelations so intimate as to shock community’s notions of decency could be constitutionally proscribed
• in false light invasion of privacy action, question whether the evidence shows there was a knowing or reckless falsehood is for the jury, not the appellate court
• false portrayal of family held hostage, depicting violence and verbal sexual insult
• “A broadly defined freedom of the press assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society.”
• describing framework for tort now labeled "invasion of privacy by false light"
• “In the ‘right of privacy’ cases the primary damage is the mental dis- tress”
• new trial mandated when jury charges permitted recovery based upon, inter alia, the failure to make a reasonable investigation, even though instructions arguably included the New York Times actual malice rule
• in action for invasion of privacy, concern about "saddl[ing] the press with the impossible task of verifying to a certainty the facts associated in news articles with a person's name, picture or portrait"
• extending actual malice standard—requiring that “the defendant acted with knowledge of the falsity of the statement or in reckless disregard as to truth or falsity”—to claim of false light invasion of privacy under state statute
• defining actual malice as “knowledge that the statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth”
• "[A]ll libel cases concern public exposure by false matter, but the primary harm being compensated is damage to reputation."
• newsworthy person can recover under a New York statute for speech that invaded privacy if there was malice
• applying constitutional malice standard to invasion of privacy action
• "A broadly defined freedom of the press assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society"
• "A broadly defined freedom of the press assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society"

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews (1)