Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/374/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:18:28+00:00

Document:
A lawsuit for false light must meet the standard of actual malice to succeed when the defendant has published false information on a matter of public interest.
Life Magazine, which was owned by Time, published an article on a Broadway play called The Desperate Hours. The article claimed that the play was based on a hostage episode that the Hill family had suffered several years before. In a defamation claim, Hill asserted that the article had cast his family in a false light. He argued that Time had published it with the knowledge that it was false.
Agreeing that the article was false, the court ruled that the Hills were not public figures and rejected Time's assertions of privilege based on matters of public interest and the constitutional right of free speech. The magazine company appealed on the grounds that it had not acted with actual malice and that the Hills were public figures because the opening of the play was a newsworthy event.
Even though the Hills did not seek public attention, they can become public figures against their will. They were not public figures during the period between the hostage episode and the play, but the opening of the play is a newsworthy event that restores their status as public figures. Constitutional protections on the freedom of the press under the First Amendment apply to protect the article, unless it was based on malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. This is true even though the article was meant to entertain and published for the purpose of commercial gain.
Agreeing with Brennan that an individual's right to privacy is not absolute, Douglas emphasized that the opening of the play moved the family back into the awareness of the general public.
Finding that Hill remained a private person, Harlan would have applied a standard of negligence to determine whether Time should be liable for defamation.
The jury verdict should have been affirmed because the jury instructions captured the malice element and thus sufficiently accounted for the constitutional concerns.
It is not unconstitutional to permit liability when individuals disseminate deliberate falsehoods, since there is no value to the public in this type of speech. Innocent or negligent misrepresentations, by contrast, would not give rise to liability because of constitutional protections for the press.
N.Y.2d 324, 221 N.E.2d 543 (1966)). However, the New York courts allow recovery under the statute when such reports are "fictitious."
1. Constitutional protections for free expression preclude applying New York's statute to redress false reports of newsworthy matters absent proof that the publisher knew of their falsity or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. Pp. 385 U. S. 380-391.
(a) Erroneous statements about a matter of public interest, like the opening of a new play linked to an actual incident, which was the subject of the Life article, are inevitable, and, if innocent or merely negligent, must be protected if "freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space' that they 'need to survive. . . .'" Id. at 376 U. S. 271-272. Pp. 385 U. S. 388-389.
(b) But constitutional guarantees of free expression can tolerate sanctions against calculated falsehood without impairment of their essential function. P. 385 U. S. 389.
2. Since the evidence in this case would support a jury finding either (1) that appellant's inaccurate portrayal of the Hill incident was innocent or merely negligent or (2) that it was recklessly untrue or knowingly false, the trial court's failure properly to instruct the jury that a verdict of liability could be predicated only on a finding of knowing or reckless falsity in the publication of the Life article constituted reversible error. Pp. 385 U. S. 391-397.
3. A declaration would be unwarranted that the New York statute is unconstitutional on its face even if construed by the New York courts to impose liability without proof of knowing or reckless falsity, because the New York courts have been assiduous to construe the statute to avoid invasion of freedom of speech and of the press. P. 385 U. S. 397.
15 N.Y.2d 986, 207 N.E.2d 604, reversed and remanded.
that Life falsely reported that a new play portrayed an experience suffered by appellee and his family.
"Three years ago, Americans all over the country read about the desperate ordeal of the James Hill family, who were held prisoners in their home outside Philadelphia by three escaped convicts. Later, they read about it in Joseph Hayes' novel, The Desperate Hour, inspired by the family's experience. Now they can see the story reenacted in Hayes' Broadway play based on the book, and next year will see it in his movie, which has been filmed but is being held up until the play has a chance to pay off."
"The play, directed by Robert Montgomery and expertly acted, is a heart-stopping account of how a family rose to heroism in a crisis. LIFE photographed the play during its Philadelphia tryout, transported some of the actors to the actual house where the Hills were besieged. On the next page, scenes from the play are reenacted on the site of the crime."
daughter biting the hand of a convict to make him drop a gun, entitled "daring daughter," and one of the father throwing his gun through the door after a "brave try" to save his family is foiled.
The James Hill referred to in the article is the appellee. He and his wife and five children involuntarily became the subjects of a front-page news story after being held hostage by three escaped convicts in their suburban Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, home for 19 hours on September 11-12, 1952. The family was released unharmed. In an interview with newsmen after the convicts departed, appellee stressed that the convicts had treated the family courteously, had not molested them, and had not been at all violent. The convicts were thereafter apprehended in a widely publicized encounter with the police which resulted in the killing of two of the convicts. Shortly thereafter, the family moved to Connecticut. The appellee discouraged all efforts to keep them in the public spotlight through magazine articles or appearances on television.
In the spring of 1953, Joseph Hayes' novel, The Desperate Hours, was published. The story depicted the experience of a family of four held hostage by three escaped convicts in the family's suburban home. But, unlike Hill's experience, the family of the story suffer violence at the hands of the convicts; the father and son are beaten and the daughter subjected to a verbal sexual insult.
the article was "a subject of legitimate news interest," "a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public" at the time of publication, and that it was "published in good faith without any malice whatsoever. . . ." A motion to dismiss the complaint for substantially these reasons was made at the close of the case, and was denied by the trial judge on the ground that the proofs presented a jury question as to the truth of the article.
"Although the play was fictionalized, Life's article portrayed it as a reenactment of the Hills' experience. It is an inescapable conclusion that this was done to advertise and attract further attention to the play, and to increase present and future magazine circulation as well. It is evident that the article cannot be characterized as a mere dissemination of news, nor even an effort to supply legitimate newsworthy information in which the public had, or might have a proper interest."
at the Appellate Division," two judges dissenting. 15 N.Y.2d 986, 207 N.E.2d 604. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal to consider the important constitutional questions of freedom of speech and press involved. 382 U.S. 936. After argument last Term, the case was restored to the docket for reargument, 384 U.S. 995. We reverse and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
"the claim that a man has the right to pass through this world, if he wills, without having his picture published . . . or his eccentricities commented upon either in handbills, circulars, catalogues, periodicals or newspapers. . . ."
"[t]he legislative body could very well interfere and arbitrarily provide that no one should be permitted for his own selfish purpose to use the picture or the name of another for advertising purposes without his consent."
171 N.Y. at 545, 64 N.E. at 443. The legislature enacted §§ 50-51 in response to that observation.
Although "Right of Privacy" is the caption of §§ 50-51, the term nowhere appears in the text of the statute itself. The text of the statute appears to proscribe only conduct of the kind involved in Roberson, that is, the appropriation and use in advertising or to promote the sale of goods, of another's name, portrait or picture without his consent. [Footnote 4] An application of that limited scope would present different questions of violation of the constitutional protections for speech and press. Compare Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52, with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 376 U. S. 265-266.
"Over the years since the statute's enactment in 1903, its social desirability and remedial nature have led to its being given a liberal construction consonant with its over-all purpose. . . ."
"[E]ver mindful that the written word or picture is involved, courts have engrafted exceptions and restrictions onto the statute to avoid any conflict with the free dissemination of thoughts, ideas, newsworthy events, and matters of public interest."
Id. 18 N.Y.2d at 328, 221 N.E.2d at 54545.
arise if truth were not a defense are therefore of no concern. Cf. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 379 U. S. 72-75.
that the book publicizes areas of Warren Spahn's personal and private life, albeit inaccurate and distorted, and consists of a host, a preponderant percentage, of factual errors, distortions and fanciful passages. . . ."
"But it is erroneous to confuse privacy with 'personality,' or to assume that privacy, though lost for a certain time or in a certain context, goes forever unprotected. . . . Thus, it may be appropriate to say that the plaintiff here, Warren Spahn, is a public personality and that, insofar as his professional career is involved, he is substantially without a right to privacy. That is not to say, however, that his 'personality' may be fictionalized and that, as fictionalized, it may be exploited for the defendants' commercial benefit through the medium of an unauthorized biography."
Spahn, supra, at 328, 221 N.E.2d at 545.
As the instant case went to the jury, appellee, too, was regarded to be a newsworthy person "substantially without a right to privacy" insofar as his hostage experience was involved, but to be entitled to his action insofar as that experience was "fictionalized" and "exploited for the defendants' commercial benefit." "Fictionalization," the Spahn opinion states, "is the heart of the cases in point." 18 N.Y.2d at 328, 221 N.E.2d at 545.
"The free speech which is encouraged and essential to the operation of a healthy government is something quite different from an individual's attempt to enjoin the publication of a fictitious biography of him. No public interest is served by protecting the dissemination of the latter. We pereceive no constitutional infirmities in this respect."
18 N.Y.2d at 329, 221 N.E.2d at 546.
of the New York statute to redress false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
The guarantees for speech and press are not the preserve of political expression or comment upon public affairs, essential as those are to healthy government. One need only pick up any newspaper or magazine to comprehend the vast range of published matter which exposes persons to public view, both private citizens and public officials. Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and of press.
"Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period."
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 310 U. S. 102.
"No suggestion can be found in the Constitution that the freedom there guaranteed for speech and the press bears an inverse ratio to the timeliness and importance of the ideas seeking expression."
the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution 571 (1876 ed.). We create a grave risk of serious impairment of the indispensable service of a free press in a free society if we saddle the press with the impossible burden of verifying to a certainty the facts associated in news articles with a person's name, picture or portrait, particularly as related to nondefamatory matter. Even negligence would be a most elusive standard, especially when the content of the speech itself affords no warning of prospective harm to another through falsity. A negligence test would place on the press the intolerable burden of guessing how a jury might assess the reasonableness of steps taken by it to verify the accuracy of every reference to a name, picture or portrait.
In this context, sanctions against either innocent or negligent misstatement would present a grave hazard of discouraging the press from exercising the constitutional guarantees. Those guarantees are not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us. A broadly defined freedom of the press assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society. Fear of large verdicts in damage suits for innocent or merely negligent misstatement, even fear of the expense involved in their defense, must inevitably cause publishers to "steer . . . wider of the unlawful zone," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 279; see also Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 526; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 361 U. S. 153-154, and thus "create the danger that the legitimate utterance will be penalized." Speiser v. Randall, supra, at 357 U. S. 526.
"The use of calculated falsehood . . . would put a different cast on the constitutional question. Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published . . . should enjoy a like immunity. . . . For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . .' Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 315 U. S. 572. Hence, the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth do not enjoy constitutional protection."
we reach that conclusion only by applying these principles in this discrete context. It therefore serves no purpose to distinguish the facts here from those in New York Times. Were this a libel action, the distinction which has been suggested between the relative opportunities of the public official and the private individual to rebut defamatory charges might be germane. And the additional state interest in the protection of the individual against damage to his reputation would be involved. Cf. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 383 U. S. 91 (STEWART, J., concurring). Moreover, a different test might be required in a statutory action by a public official, as opposed to a libel action by a public official or a statutory action by a private individual. Different considerations might arise concerning the degree of "waiver" of the protection the State might afford. But the question whether the same standard should be applicable both to persons voluntarily and involuntarily thrust into the public limelight is not here before us.
or the Hill family's experience, although admitting that, "in a very direct way," the Hill experience "triggered" the writing of the book and the play.
The Life article was prepared at the direction and under the supervision of its entertainment editor, Prideaux. He learned of the production of the play from a news story. ~ The play's director, Robert Montgomery, later suggested to him that its interesting stage setting would make the play a worthwhile subject for an article in Life. At about the same time, Prideaux ran into a friend of author Hayes, a freelance photographer, who told Prideaux in casual conversation that the play had a "substantial connection with a true life incident of a family being held by escaped convicts near Philadelphia." As the play was trying out in Philadelphia, Prideaux decided to contact the author. Hayes confirmed that an incident somewhat similar to the play had occurred in Philadelphia, and agreed with Prideaux to find out whether the former Hill residence would be available for the shooting of pictures for a Life article. Prideaux then met with Hayes in Philadelphia where he saw the play and drove with Hayes to the former Hill residence to test its suitability for a picture story. Neither then nor thereafter did Prideaux question Hayes about the extent to which the play was based on the Hill incident.
"A specific question of that nature was never asked, but a discussion of the play itself, what the play was about, in the light of my own knowledge of what the true incident was about, confirmed in my mind beyond any doubt that there was a relationship, and Mr. Hayes' presence at this whole negotiation was tacit proof of that."
Prideaux sent photographers to the Hill residence for location photographs of scenes of the play enacted in the home, and proceeded to construct the text of the article.
In his "story file" were several news clippings about the Hill incident which revealed its nonviolent character, and a New York Times article by Hayes in which he stated that the play "was based on various news stories," mentioning incidents in New York, California, Detroit and Philadelphia.
Prideaux's first draft made no mention of the Hill name except for the caption of one of the photographs. The text related that a true story of a suburban Philadelphia family had "sparked off" Hayes to write the novel, that the play was a "somewhat fictionalized" account of the family's heroism in time of crisis. Prideaux's research assistant, whose task it was to check the draft for accuracy, put a question mark over the words "somewhat fictionalized." Prideaux testified that the question mark "must have been" brought to his attention, although he did not recollect having seen it. The draft was also brought before the copy editor, who, in the presence of Prideaux, made several changes in emphasis and substance. The first sentence was changed to focus on the Hill incident, using the family's name; the novel was said to have been "inspired" by that incident, and the play was referred to as a "reenactment." The words "somewhat fictionalized" were deleted.
Prideaux labeled as "emphatically untrue" defense counsel's suggestion during redirect examination that, from the beginning, he knew that the play had no relationship to the Hill incident apart from being a hostage incident. Prideaux admitted that he knew the play was "between a little bit and moderately fictionalized," but stated that he thought beyond doubt that the important quality, the "heart and soul" of the play, was the Hill incident.
plaintiffs' relationship to The Desperate Hours, so that the article, as published, constituted substantially fiction or a fictionalized version . . . ,"
whether the article constituted "fiction," or was "fictionalized", and that (2) the article was published to advertise the play or "for trade purposes." This latter purpose was variously defined as one "to amuse, thrill, astonish or move the reading public so as to increase the circulation of the magazine or for some other material benefit," "to increase circulation or enhance the standing of the magazine with its readers," and "for the publisher's profits through increased circulation, induced by exploitation of the plaintiffs."
"You do not need to find that there was any actual ill will or personal malice toward the plaintiffs if you find a reckless or wanton disregard of the plaintiffs' rights."
the charge, cannot save the charge from constitutional infirmity.
"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."
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 343 U. S. 501-502; see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 266; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 361 U. S. 150; cf. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727, 96 U. S. 733; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444.
The appellant argues that the statute should be declared unconstitutional on its face if construed by the New York courts to impose liability without proof of knowing or reckless falsity. [Footnote 14] Such a declaration would not be warranted even if it were entirely clear that this had previously been the view of the New York courts. The New York Court of Appeals, as the Spahn opinion demonstrates, has been assiduous in construing the statute to avoid invasion of the constitutional protections of speech and press. We, therefore, confidently expect that the New York courts will apply the statute consistently with the constitutional command. Any possible difference with us as to the thrust of the constitutional command is narrowly limited in this case to the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury that a verdict of liability could be predicated only on a finding of knowing or reckless falsity in the publication of the Life article.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
"§ 50. Right of privacy"
"A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
"§ 51. Action for injunction and for damages"
"Any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait or picture, to prevent and restrain the use thereof, and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person's name, portrait or picture in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the last section, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages. But nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed, and nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from using the name, portrait or picture of any manufacturer or dealer in connection with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured, produced or dealt in by him which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith; or from using the name, portrait or picture of any author, composer or artist in connection with his literary, musical or artistic productions which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait or picture used in connection therewith."
Initially, appellee's wife was joined in the action, and was awarded $75,000 compensatory and $25,000 punitive damages by the jury. However, her action was apparently dismissed by stipulation prior to remand, because the action has since proceeded solely upon appellee's judgment.
The various facets of this "right" have been the subject of much comment. See, e.g., Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy in the Supreme Court, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 383 (1960); Westin, Science, Privacy, and Freedom: Issues and Proposals for the 1970's (Part I), 66 Col.L.Rev. 1003 (1966); Feinberg, Recent Developments in the Law of Privacy, 48 Col.L.Rev. 713, 717-726 (1948). The latest collection of articles appears in 31 Law & Contemp.Prob. 251-435 (1966). The commentary relates not so much to the assertion of constitutional protections against intrusions by government, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, as to rights of action for injunctive relief or damages to combat intrusive behavior in the private sector of society.
Utah's statute was modeled on New York's, and, following early New York decisions, the Utah Supreme Court has construed it to afford a cause of action only in such cases. Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures Dist. Corp., 2 Utah 2d 256, 272 P.2d 177 (1954).
See, e.g., Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (C.A.2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 711 (1940); Sweenek v. Pathe News, Inc., 16 F.Supp. 746 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.1936); Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc., 278 App.Div. 431, 106 N.Y.S.2d 553 (1951), aff'd, 304 N.Y. 354, 107 N.E.2d 485 (1952); Molony v. Boy Comics Pubs., Inc., 277 App.Div. 166, 98 N.Y.S.2d 119 (1950); Humiston v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 189 App.Div. 467, 178 N.Y.Supp. 752 (1919); Colver v. Richard K. Fox Pub. Co., 162 App.Div. 297, 146 N.Y.Supp. 999 (1914); Koussevitzky v. Allen, Towne & Heath, Inc., 188 Misc. 479, 68 N.Y.S.2d 779, aff'd, 272 App.Div. 759, 69 N.Y.S.2d 432 (1947); Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 162 Misc. 776, 295 N.Y.Supp. 382 (1937).
"Upon reargument, counsel are requested to discuss in their further briefs and oral arguments, in addition to the other issues, the following questions: "
"(1) Is the truthful presentation of a newsworthy item ever actionable under the New York statute as construed or on its face? If so, does appellant have standing to challenge that aspect of the statute?"
"(2) Should the per curiam opinion of the New York Court of Appeals be read as adopting the following portion of the concurring opinion in the Appellate Division?"
"'However, if it can be clearly demonstrated that the newsworthy item is presented not for the purpose of disseminating news, but rather for the sole purpose of increasing circulation, then the rationale for exemption from section 51 no longer exists and the exemption should not apply. In such circumstances, the privilege to use one's name should not be granted even though a true account of the event be given -- let alone when the account is sensationalized and fictionalized.'"
This limitation to newsworthv persons and events does not, of course, foreclose an interpretation of the statute to allow damages where "Revelations may be so intimate and so unwarranted in view of the victim's position as to outrage the community's notions of decency." Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corp., 113 F.2d 806, 809 (C.A.2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 711 (1940). Cf. Garner v. Triangle Pubs., Inc., 97 F.Supp. 546, 550 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951); Restatement, Torts § 867, comment & (1939). See id., illust. 6. This case presents no question whether truthful publication of such matter could be constitutionally proscribed.
"it has been agreed that there is a generous privilege to serve the public interest in news. . . . What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the claim of privilege is not so overpowering as virtually to swallow the tort. What can he left of the vaunted new right after the claims of privilege have been confronted?"
"One of the clearest exceptions to the statutory prohibition is the rule that a public figure, whether he be such by choice or involuntarily, is subject to the often searching beam of publicity, and that, in balance with the legitimate public interest, the law affords his privacy little protection,"
Binns v. Vitagraph Co., 210 N.Y. 51, 103 N.E. 1108 (1913); Youssoupoff v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 19 App.Div.2d 865, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1963); Sutton v. Hearst Corp., 277 App.Div. 155, 98 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1950); Koussevitzky v. Allen, Towne & Heath, Inc., 188 Misc. 479, 68 N.Y.S.2d 779, aff'd, 272 App.Div. 759, 69 N.Y.S.2d 432 (1947); Lahiri v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 162 Misc. 776, 295 N.Y.Supp. 382 (1937). The doctrine of "fictionalization" has been applied where there is no statute. See, e.g., Leverton v. Curtis Pub. Co., 192 F.2d 974 (C.A.3d Cir.1951); Hazlitt v. Fawcett Pubs., 116 F.Supp. 538 (D.C. Conn.1953); Garner v. Triangle Pubs., Inc., 97 F.Supp. 546 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951). Commentators have likened the interest protected in those "privacy" cases which focus upon the falsity of the matter to that protected in cases of libel and slander -- injury to the reputation. See Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 383, 398-401 (1960); Wade, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 1093 (1962). But see Bloustein, Privacy As An Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser, 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 962, 991-993 (1964). Many "right of privacy" cases could, in fact, have been brought as "libel per quod" actions, and several have been brought on both grounds. See, e.g., Hazlitt v. Fawcett Pubs., supra; Freeman v. Busch Jewelry Co., 98 F.Supp. 963 (D.C.N.D.Ga.1951); Peay v. Curtis Pub. Co., 78 F.Supp. 305 (D.C.D.C.1948); Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn, 134 Ky. 424, 120 S.W. 364 (1909). Although not usually thought of in terms of "right of privacy," all libel cases concern public exposure by false matter, but the primary harm being compensated is damage to reputation. In the "right of privacy" cases, the primary damage is the mental distress from having been exposed to public view, although injury to reputation may be an element bearing upon such damage. See Wade, supra, at 1124. Moreover, as Spahn illustrates, the published matter need not be defamatory, on its face or otherwise, and might even be laudatory and still warrant recovery. Our decision today is not to be taken to decide any constitutional questions which may be raised in "libel per quod" actions involving publication of matters of public interest, or in libel actions where the plaintiff is not a public official. Nor do we intimate any view whether the Constitution limits state power to sanction publication of matter obtained by an intrusion into a protected area, for example, through the use of electronic listening devices.
Of course, Spahn is not before us, and we in no wise imply any view of the merits of the judgment or remedy afforded the plaintiff in that case. Our reliance is solely on Judge Keating's opinion as an aid to understanding the construction placed on the statute by the New York courts.
Where either result finds reasonable support in the record, it is for the jury, not for this Court, to determine whether there was knowing or reckless falsehood. Cf. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U. S. 284-285.
Although the court qualified this instruction by requiring a finding of "reckless or wanton disregard of the plaintiffs' rights" in absence of a finding of "actual ill will or personal malice," this reasonably could have been taken by the jury to relate not to truth or falsity, but to appellant's attitude toward appellee's privacy. Therefore, even this instruction would have been constitutionally infirm. Even had the Appellate Division not found prejudicial error affecting the jury's award of punitive damages, the judgment before us could not be sustained on the basis of the jury's finding on that issue.
"distinction between an intentionally fictionalized treatment and a straight factual treatment (subject to inadvertent or superficial inaccuracies). . . ."
(Emphasis supplied.) In light of the Court of Appeals opinion, we cannot accept this as an accurate statement of New York law.
Appellant further contends that the threat of criminal penalty invalidates the statute. However, there have been only two cases of criminal proceedings under the statute, and both resulted in dismissal. People v. Charles Scribner's Sons, 205 Misc. 818, 130 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1954); People v. McBride & Co., 159 Misc. 5, 288 N.Y.Supp. 501 (1936). There is therefore little realistic threat of prosecution. Cf. United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 362 U. S. 224 (1960).
I concur in reversal of the judgment in this case based on the grounds and reasons stated in the Court's opinion. I do this, however, in order for the Court to be able at this time to agree on an opinion in this important case based on the prevailing constitutional doctrine expressed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. The Court's opinion decides the case in accordance with this doctrine, to which the majority adhere. In agreeing to the Court's opinion, I do not recede from any of the views I have previously expressed about the much wider press and speech freedoms I think the First and Fourteenth Amendments were designed to grant to the people of the Nation. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 293 (concurring opinion); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 383 U. S. 94 (concurring and dissenting opinion).
no more be permanently diluted or abridged by this Court's action than could the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel. I think the fate that befell Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335), is already foreseeable, even if only dimly, for the New York Times' dilution of First Amendment rights.
dead set against constitutional interpretations that expand their powers, and that, when power is once claimed by some, others are loath to give it up.
of the newsworthy facts. [Footnote 2/3] Such a consummation hardly seems consistent with the clearly expressed purpose of the Founders to guarantee the press a favored spot in our free society.
See, e.g., In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82, 366 U. S. 97 (dissenting opinion); Braden v. United States, 365 U. S. 431, 365 U. S. 438 (dissenting opinion); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 360 U. S. 140-145 (dissenting opinion).
". . . guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals."
8 Jefferson, Works 464-465 (Ford ed. 1904).
See, for example, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 351 F.2d 702 (3,000,000 libel judgment, cut to $460,000 on appeal), cert. granted, post, p 811; Associated Press v. Walker, 393 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Civ.App.) ($500,000 libel judgment), cert. granted, post, p. 812; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 ($500,000 libel judgment), reversed.
As intimated in my separate opinion in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 383 U. S. 88, and in the opinion of my Brother BLACK in the same case, id. at 383 U. S. 94, state action to abridge freedom of the press is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments where the discussion concerns matters in the public domain. The episode around which this book was written had been news of the day for some time. The most that can be said is that the novel, the play, and the magazine article revived that interest. A fictionalized treatment of the event is, in my view, as much in the public domain as would be a watercolor of the assassination of a public official. It seems to me irrelevant to talk of any right of privacy in this context. Here, a private person is catapulted into the news by events over which he had no control. He and his activities are then in the public domain as fully as the matters at issue in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. Such privacy as a person normally has ceases when his life has ceased to be private.
380 U. S. 479, 380 U. S. 487, * is almost sure to take place. That is, I fear, the result once we allow an exception for "knowing or reckless falsity." Such an elusive exception gives the jury, the finder of the facts, broad scope and almost unfettered discretion. A trial is a chancy thing, no matter what safeguards are provided. To let a jury on this record return a verdict or not as it chooses is to let First Amendment rights ride on capricious or whimsical circumstances, for emotions and prejudice often do carry the day. The exception for "knowing or reckless falsity" is therefore, in my view, an abridgment of speech that is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But, as indicated in my Brother BLACK's opinion, I have joined the Court's opinion in order to make possible an adjudication that controls this litigation. Cf. Mr. Justice Rutledge, concurring, Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 325 U. S. 113, 325 U. S. 134.
* And see Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415.
While I find much with which I agree in the opinion of the Court, I am constrained to express my disagreement with its view of the proper standard of liability to be applied on remand. Were the jury on retrial to find negligent, rather than, as the Court requires, reckless or knowing "fictionalization," I think that federal constitutional requirements would be met.
showing of substantial falsity. I agree that the compensatory damage instruction given by the trial court required only such a determination and a finding of "commercial purpose" to sustain liability. And reading the opinion of the Appellate Division in the light of other New York decisions, I believe that this was the theory upon which the jury finding was sustained. [Footnote 3/1] True, the trial court told the jury that it must find that the appellant "altered or changed the true facts." But it did not specify whether this alteration or change would have to be reckless or negligent, or whether innocent variation from the facts as found by the jury would suffice for the award of damages. Clearly, knowing falsification was not required, for the court refused appellant's request to charge that the jury must find in its favor unless it found knowing falsification.
the Appellate Division, which found it unduly influenced by inflammatory evidence. On remand for reconsideration of damages, only a compensatory award was made. This was the award affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the decision we are reviewing. With the case in this posture, I do not think it can fairly be said that there has been a binding jury interpretation of the degree of fault involved in the fictionalization, and I agree with the Court that the conduct involved would bear a variety of interpretations.
by the author himself and used by appellee to demonstrate the supposed falsity of the Life piece. Finally, no claim is made that appellant published the article to advance a commercial interest in the play. There is no evidence to show that Time, Inc., had any financial interest in the production, or even that the article was published as an advertisement. Thus, the question whether a State may apply more stringent limitations to the use of the personality in "purely commercial advertising" is not before the Court. See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52.
Having come this far in step with the Court's opinion, I must part company with its sweeping extension of the principles of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254. It was established in New York Times that mere falsity will not suffice to remove constitutional protection from published matter relating to the conduct of a public official that is of public concern. But that decision and those in which the Court has developed its doctrine, Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, have never found independent value in false publications, [Footnote 3/2] nor any reason for their protection except to add to the protection of truthful communication. And the Court has been quick to note that, where private actions are involved, the social interest in individual protection from falsity may be substantial. Rosenblatt v.
Baer, supra, at 383 U. S. 86-87, n. 13. Thus, I believe that rigorous scrutiny of the principles underlying the rejection of the mere falsity criterion and the imposition of ancillary safeguards, as well as the interest which the State seeks to protect, is necessary to reach a proper resolution of this case.
Two essential principles seem to underlie the Court's rejection of the mere falsity criterion in New York Times. The first is the inevitability of some error in the situation presented in free debate, especially when abstract matters are under consideration. Certainly that is illustrated here in the difficulty to be encountered in making a precise description of the relationship between the Hill incident and The Desperate Hours. The second is the Court's recognition that, in many areas which are at the center of public debate, "truth" is not a readily identifiable concept, and putting to the preexisting prejudices of a jury the determination of what is "true" may effectively institute a system of censorship. Any nation which counts the Scopes trial as part of its heritage cannot so readily expose ideas to sanctions on a jury finding of falsity. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. "The marketplace of ideas," where it functions, still remains the best testing ground for truth.
"the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it [government position], beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees. . . ."
"The employee's position must be one which would invite public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it, entirely apart from the scrutiny and discussion occasioned by the particular charges in controversy."
Second, there is a vast difference in the state interest in protecting individuals like Mr. Hill from irresponsibly prepared publicity and the state interest in similar protection for a public official. In New York Times, we acknowledged public officials to be a breed from whom hardiness to exposure to charges, innuendoes, and criticisms might be demanded and who voluntarily assumed the risk of such things by entry into the public arena.
376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 273. But Mr. Hill came to public attention through an unfortunate circumstance not of his making, rather than his voluntary actions, and he can in no sense be considered to have "waived" any protection the State might justifiably afford him from irresponsible publicity. Not being inured to the vicissitudes of journalistic scrutiny, such an individual is more easily injured, and his means of self-defense are more limited. The public is less likely to view with normal skepticism what is written about him, because it is not accustomed to seeing his name in the press and expects only a disinterested report.
New York, labored under the more exacting handicap of the existing New York privacy law and has certainly remained robust. Other professional activity of great social value is carried on under a duty of reasonable care, [Footnote 3/7] and there is no reason to suspect the press would be less hardy than medical practitioners or attorneys, for example. The "freedom of the press" guaranteed by the First Amendment, and as reflected in the Fourteenth, cannot be thought to insulate all press conduct from review and responsibility for harm inflicted. [Footnote 3/8] The majority would allow sanctions against such conduct only when it is morally culpable. I insist that it can also be reached when it creates a severe risk of irremediable harm to individuals involuntarily exposed to it and powerless to protect themselves against it. I would remand the case to the New York courts for possible retrial under that principle.
Times case has ushered in such a trend, it will prove, in its long-range impact, to have done a disservice to the true values encompassed in the freedoms of speech and press.
"points of similarity in the book and the occurrence . . . justified neither the identification nor the commercial exploitation of plaintiffs' name and family with the play."
Justice Rabin, concurring, agreed that the subject could have been presented without liability "albeit the presentation of such newsworthy material increases the publisher's circulation." The New York Court of Appeals affirmed "on the majority and concurring opinions at the Appellate Division." The decision below seems to have ample support in New York law. See, e.g., Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 18 N.Y.2d 324, 221 N.E.2d 543; Binns v. Vitagraph Co., 147 App.Div. 783, 132 N.Y.Supp. 237, aff'd, 210 N.Y. 51, 103 N.E. 1108; Youssoupoff v. CBS, Inc., 41 Misc.2d 42, 244 N.Y.S.2d 701, aff'd, 19 App.Div.2d 865, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1; Koussevitzky v. Allen, Towne & Heath, Inc., 188 Misc. 479, 68 N.Y.S.2d 779, aff'd, 272 App.Div. 759, 69 N.Y.S.2d 432.
The passage from Garrison v. Louisiana, supra, quoted in the opinion of the Court makes clear that the only interest in protecting falsehood is to give added "breathing space" to truth. It is undeniable that falsity may be published, especially in the political arena, with what may be considered "good" motives -- for example, a good faith belief in the absolute necessity of defeating an "evil" candidate. But the Court does not remove state power to control such conduct, thus underlining the strong social interest in discouraging false publication.
Thus, the State may take land for the construction of library facilities. E.g., Hayford v. Bangor, 102 Me. 340, 66 A. 731; Laird v. Pittsburgh, 205 Pa. 1, 54 A. 324.
Thus, many state universities have professional schools of journalism. See 3 Department of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Education Directory -- Higher Education.
See Riesman, Democracy and Defamation: Fair Game and Fair Comment I, 42 Col.L.Rev. 1085; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250; State v. Klapprott, 127 N.J.L. 395, 22 A.2d 877. And despite the Court's denial that the opportunity for rebuttal is germane, it must be the circulation of falsity and the harm stemming from it which lead the Court to allow the imposition of liability at all. For the Court finds the subject of the Life article "a matter of public interest." And it states that "[e]xposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a civilized community." Thus, it could not permit New York to allow compensation for mere exposure unless it is holding, as I am sure it is not, that the presence of some reckless falsehood in written material strips it of all constitutional protection. The Court's suggestion that Mr. Hill might not be anxious to rebut the falsehood because it might increase his harm from exposure is equally applicable to libel actions where the opportunity to rebut may he limited by fear of reiterating the libel. And this factor emphasizes, rather than lessens, the state interest in discouraging falsehood, for it increases the likelihood that falsity will continue to circulate to the detriment of some when truth should be encouraged "for the benefit of all of us."
A negligence standard has been applied in libel actions both where the underlying facts are alleged to be libelous, Layne v. Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234, and where comment is the subject of the action, Clancy v. Daily News Corp., 202 Minn. 1, 277 N.W. 264. Similarly the press should not be constitutionally insulated from privacy actions brought by parties in the position of Mr. Hill when reasonable care has not been taken in ascertaining or communicating the underlying facts, or where the publisher has not kept within the traditional boundaries of "fair comment" with relation to underlying facts and honest opinion. See Prosser, Law of Torts § 110, at 815-816. Similar standards of reasonable investigation and presentation have long been applied in misrepresentation cases. See, e.g., International Products Co. v. Erie R. Co., 244 N.Y. 331, 155 N.E. 662; Nash v. Minnesota Title Ins. Trust Co., 163 Mass. 574, 40 N.E. 1039. Under such a standard, the fact that the publication involved in this case was not defamatory would enter into a determination of the amount of care which would have been reasonable in the preparation of the article.
See, e.g., McCoid, The Care Required of Medical Practitioners, 12 Vand.L.Rev. 549; Wade, The Attorney's Liability for Negligence, 12 Vand.L.Rev. 755. It may be argued that other professions are distinguishable because practitioners may insure against liability. But this course is also open to the press. Developments in the Law, Defamation, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 875, 906.
This Court has never held that the press has an absolute privilege to publish falsity. There is nothing in the history of the First Amendment, or the Fourteenth, to indicate that the authors contemplated restrictions on the ability of private persons to seek legal redress for press-inflicted injury. See generally Levy, Legacy of Suppression; Duniway, The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. The Founders rejected an attempt by Madison to add to Art. I, § 10, a guarantee of freedom of the press against state action. The main argument advanced against it was that it would unduly interfere with the proper powers of the States. See 5 Madison's Writings 378 (Hunt ed.); 1 Annals of Cong. 756.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE CLARK join, dissenting.
The Court's holding here is exceedingly narrow. It declines to hold that the New York "Right of Privacy" statute is unconstitutional. I agree. The Court concludes, however, that the instructions to the jury in this case were fatally defective because they failed to advise the jury that a verdict for the plaintiffs could be predicated only on a finding of knowing or reckless falsity in the publication of the Life article. Presumably, the appellee is entitled to a new trial. If he can stand the emotional and financial burden, there is reason to hope that he will recover damages for the reckless and irresponsible assault upon himself and his family which this article represents. But he has litigated this case for 11 years. He should not be subjected to the burden of a new trial without significant cause. This does not exist. Perhaps the purpose of the decision here is to indicate that this Court will place insuperable obstacles in the way of recovery by persons who are injured by reckless and heedless assaults, provided they are in print and even though they are totally divorced from fact. If so, I should think that the Court would cast its decision in constitutional terms. Short of that purpose, with which I would strongly disagree, there is no reason here to order a new trial. The instructions in this case are acceptable even within the principles today announced by the Court.
distress. [Footnote 4/2] A distinct right of privacy is now recognized, either as a "common law" right or by statute, in at least 35 States. [Footnote 4/3] Its exact scope varies in the respective jurisdictions. It is, simply stated, the right to be let alone; to live one's life as one chooses, free from assault, intrusion or invasion except as they can be justified by the clear needs of community living under a government of law. As Mr. Justice Brandeis said in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 478 (1928), the right of privacy is "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
"apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property. . . ."
unconscionable invasions of privacy" as intimately related to the freedom from convictions based upon coerced confessions. He said that both served the cause of perpetuating "principles of humanity and civil liberty [secured] . . . only after years of struggle." Id. at 367 U. S. 657 quoting from Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532 544 (1897). He said that they express "supplementing phases of the same constitutional purpose to maintain inviolate large areas of personal privacy." Ibid., quoting from Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, 322 U. S. 489-490 (1944).
principle, its decision, which it claims to be based on erroneous instructions, discloses hesitancy to go beyond the verbal acknowledgment.
The Court today does not repeat the ringing words of so many of its members on so many occasions in exaltation of the right of privacy. Instead, it reverses a decision under the New York "Right of Privacy" statute because of the "failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury that a verdict of liability could be predicated only on a finding of knowing or reckless falsity in the publication of the Life article." In my opinion, the jury instructions, although they were not a textbook model, satisfied this standard.
"falsely connected plaintiffs with The Desperate Hours, and that this was done knowingly or through failure to make a reasonable investigation."
"You do not need to find that there was any actual ill will or personal malice toward the plaintiffs if you find reckless or wanton disregard of the plaintiffs' rights."
or changed the true facts concerning plaintiffs' relationship to The Desperate Hours, so that the article, as published, constituted substantially fiction or a fictionalized version for trade purposes. . . ."
"Before the plaintiffs can be entitled to a verdict . . . , you must find that the statements concerning the plaintiffs in the article constituted fiction, as compared with news, or matters which were newsworthy."
The English language is not so esoteric as to permit serious consequences to turn upon a supposed difference between the instructions to the jury and this Court's formulation. Nor is the First Amendment in such delicate health that it requires or permits this kind of surgery, the net effect of which is not only an individual injustice, but an encouragement to recklessness and careless readiness to ride roughshod over the interests of others.
The courts may not and must not permit either public or private action that censors or inhibits the press. But part of this responsibility is to preserve values and procedures which assure the ordinary citizen that the press is not above the reach of the law -- that its special prerogatives, granted because of its special and vital functions, are reasonably equated with its needs in the performance of these functions. For this Court totally to immunize the press -- whether forthrightly or by subtle indirection -- in areas far beyond the needs of news, comment on public persons and events, discussion of public issues and the like would be no service to freedom of the press, but an invitation to public hostility to that freedom. This Court cannot and should not refuse to permit, under state law, the private citizen who is aggrieved by the type of assault which we have here, and which is not within the specially protected core of the First Amendment, to recover compensatory damages for recklessly inflicted invasion of his rights.
Cooley, Law of Torts 29 (2d ed. 1888).
4 Harv.L.Rev.193, 196 (1890). See Prosser, Law of Torts 829 et seq. (3d ed.1964).
Prosser, op. cit. supra, 831, 832.
Wolf held that the basic values of the Fourth Amendment apply to the States via the Fourteenth, but declined to require the States to exclude illegally seized evidence in criminal trials. In this latter respect, it was overruled by Mapp v. Ohio, infra.
Last Term, in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U. S. 75, 383 U. S. 92 (1966), MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring, referred to the "right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt" as reflecting "our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being -- a concept at the root of an decent system of ordered liberty." He referred to the "protection of private personality, like the protection of life itself," as entitled to "recognition by this Court as a basic of our constitutional system." See also MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting, in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 521 (1961).
". . . There is equal unanimity that opportunists, for private gain, cannot be permitted to arm themselves with an acceptable principle, such as that of a right to work, a privilege to engage in interstate commerce, or a free press, and proceed to use it as an iron standard to smooth their path by crushing the living rights of others to privacy and repose."
There is no indication in the record that the court's award was intended to set aside or otherwise nullify the jury's finding under the punitive damage restrictions.
The majority seek to avoid the impact of the instruction's reference to the necessity of finding "a reckless or wanton disregard of the plaintiffs' rights" by speculating that this referred only to failure to obtain consent, and not to falsity. Not only is there no basis for this speculation, but the placing of this part of the instruction -- immediately after the discussion of falsity -- suggests that the contrary is true.
"While untrue statements do not necessarily transform a book into the category of fiction, the all-pervasive distortions, inaccuracies, invented dialogue, and the narration of happenings out of context, clearly indicate, at the very best, a careless disregard for the responsibility of the press and within the context of this action, an abuse of the public's limited privilege to inquire into an individual's life."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in casu
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 867
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 110
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.