Source: http://livrozilla.com/doc/1750080/supreme-court-of-the-united-states
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:56:39+00:00

Document:
National Life Insurance Co. v.
more than 8,000 members and 250 local chapters.
is, they do not own or in any way facilitate the trading of securities in the companies on which they report or comment, nor do they owe any relevant fiduciary duty to investors.
intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
brief. All parties have consented to its filing, and letters reflecting their consent have been filed with the Clerk.
financial news and commentary available to the public.
decisions. The decision below will inhibit the financial news and commentary that is so valued by consumers and professionals and so necessary to efficient operation of the markets. Review is warranted.
satisfy the First Amendment.” N.Y. Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964) (footnotes omitted).
fact made no such statement regarding May 22 (Pet.
have known” that his reporting was false. Pet. App.
19a. Based solely on this “false” fact (see Pet. App.
Special Report, and the Super Insider Tip E-mail used to promote the Special Report. Pet. App. 7a.
The Fourth Circuit’s reasoning is contrary to decisions of this Court and of the courts of appeals.
Contrary To New York Times And Bose.
erroneous speech in some way. Id. at 281.
N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 280).
by clear and convincing proof of ‘actual malice.’” Id.
novo review.” Id. at 108.
the First Amendment interests prevail.
opinions turns out, in time, to have been mistaken.
a public company, the interests weigh heavily in favor of protecting the speech.
problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S.
6 See, e.g., Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 444 U.S.
620, 637 (1980) (collecting cases); Commodity Trend Serv., Inc.
v. CFTC, 233 F.3d 981, 992 (7th Cir. 2000).
the epithet” “fraud” than the “libel” label. See id.
‘fraud,’ of course, will not carry the day.” Id. at 617.
context would serve “[a]s an additional safeguard responsive to First Amendment concerns.” Id. at 621.
creative pleading.” Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v.
York Times protections to state-law “tortious interference” claim).
Amendment in protecting financial news publishers and writers.
commentary. See, e.g., Jefferson County Sch. Dist.
claim related to securities); Compuware Corp. v.
Moody’s Investors Servs., 499 F.3d 520, 531 (6th Cir.
whether speech falls within protected categories.
Falanga v. State Bar, 150 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir.
findings of constitutional … fact, our standard of review is de novo.”).
Corp., 778 F.2d 35, 42 & n.3 (1985); Novartis Corp. v.
FTC, 223 F.3d 783, 787 n.4 (2000); Philip Morris v.
See Pet. of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. at i (filed Feb.
the public with necessary financial information.
S.E.C. Docket 1401, 1406 n.18 (1981)).
of surpassing importance to these investors. See Pet.
Maher & Ben Casselman, Coal Giant Consol Is Latest To Buy Gas, Wall St. J., Mar.
Upbeat on AIG Prospects, Wall St. J., Apr.
REIT Rebound, N.Y. Times, June 21, 2009, at Bus. 14.
statement is a serious threat to financial reporting.
outlets to avoid these types of stories altogether.
Journalism Review (May/June 2009) (listing over seven hundred financial press stories related to the financial crisis).
would seriously undermine the free speech of journalists.
First Amendment than  pure speech.” Pet. App.
light of the government’s position below, amicus addresses here the question of whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision can be saved by invoking the commercial speech doctrine. It cannot.
LLC (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 08-1037).
economic motivation.” 463 U.S. 60, 66-67 (1983).
all these characteristics” provides support for classifying speech as commercial. Id. at 67.
protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., SEC v.
Magazine that portrayed firms as appealing investment prospects were not commercial speech); Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., 151 F.3d 180 (4th Cir.
investment advice” qualifies “for full First Amendment protection”).
product (i.e., the stock described) it is not an advertisement and the speaker has no economic motivation related to the product.
documentary film should not receive lesser protection than the film itself.
newsletter did not make them commercial speech.
Moreover, under this Court’s decision in Riley v.
phrase and another test to another phrase.” Id.
“artificial and impractical” to therefore strip the entire document of First Amendment protections.
uncertainly and upheaval in the journalism industry, writers and publishers need to be able to advertise their work and entice readers to consume it.
audience. For these reasons, the Court should reaffirm that publications like the Special Report and Email are not commercial speech.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.