Opinion ID: 4525087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: c.m. also failed to plead actual malice

Text: Even if some statements in the Newsweek article were defamatory, C.M.’s claim fails because he did not plead actual malice. To show defamation, a public figure (even if just a “limited-purpose public figure” like C.M.) must show that the publisher acted with “actual malice.” Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau of E. Pa., 923 A.2d 389, 400 (Pa. 2007). “Actual malice” is a term of art that does not connote ill will or improper motivation. Rather, it requires that the publisher either know that its article was false or publish it with “reckless disregard” for its truth. Id. at 399 n.12. The First Amendment requires this demanding standard. See N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964). C.M. is a limited-purpose public figure. He “voluntarily inject[ed] himself” into the political controversies surrounding President Trump and the President’s critics and enjoys “significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication” than his peers. Am. Future Sys., Inc., 923 A.2d at 401 (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344, 351). One of C.M.’s videos has been watched hundreds of thousands of times, and news outlets both here and abroad have sought him out to discuss his political exploits. So C.M. must plead actual malice. Newsweek does not admit that it “serious[ly] doubt[ed]” the truth of its article or knew that it likely contained false statements. See 3 Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 580A cmt. d (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). Thus, to show actual malice, C.M. must use circumstantial evidence. Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 129 A.3d 404, 437 (Pa. 2015). 12 C.M. cites three pieces of circumstantial evidence. First, he argues that Newsweek “grossly departed from professional journalistic standards” by not asking C.M. or his parents to comment for the article. Appellants’ Br. 23. Second, he charges that Newsweek must have done so to improve its “declining and anemic sales and online hits.” App. 7 (amended complaint). Third, he stresses that Newsweek put a large photo of C.M. at the top of the article. Even taken together, these facts fall well short of actual malice. The District Court rightly discounted C.M.’s charges of subpar journalism. As then-Judge Alito explained, “even an extreme departure from professional standards, without more, will not support a finding of actual malice.” Tucker v. Fischbein, 237 F.3d 275, 286 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 665 (1989)); see also Bartlett v. Bradford Publ’g, Inc., 885 A.2d 562, 567 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). “Likewise, a failure to investigate” Professor Gitlin’s charges before publication, “standing alone, does not constitute actual malice.” Tucker, 237 F.3d at 286. And Newsweek’s desire “to increase its profits” and sluggish sales does not make out actual malice either. Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, 491 U.S. at 667. Lastly, printing a photo of C.M. says nothing about whether Newsweek doubted the truth of any of the facts in the article. The photo shows only that C.M. endorsed Donald Trump, a fact backed up by the article’s first two paragraphs. The photo shows an energetic C.M. holding up a 2016 Trump campaign sign. That is all. Since the article profiled two young Trump 13 supporters, C.M. and M.M., it naturally included photos of both of them. In sum, C.M. does not plead facts that suggest actual malice. He does not, for instance, plead that Newsweek made up Professor Gitlin’s statements, used them to accuse him of breaking the law when it knew he was innocent, or published facts contrary to information it otherwise knew. We do not doubt that C.M. was disturbed by the publication. But “[a]ctual malice focuses on [Newsweek’s] attitude towards the truth,” not towards him. DeMary v. Latrobe Printing & Publ’g Co., 762 A.2d 758, 764 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (emphasis added). Because he has not adequately pleaded actual malice, he may not use discovery to probe Newsweek’s state of mind. See Tucker v. Phila. Daily News, 848 A.2d 113, 130 (Pa. 2004); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009). So the District Court properly dismissed his defamation claim.