Opinion ID: 1129262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: current distinction is contrary to the first amendment

Text: Second, the media/nonmedia defendant distinction in defamation actions by private individuals is, as the LaMons argue, contrary to the First Amendment. Since this court's media defendant distinction currently rests upon policy reasons, rooted in the First Amendment, Mark, at 487, it is important to consider that a clear majority of the Justices on the United States Supreme Court and several federal courts addressing the issue have stated that the First Amendment does not support granting the media special protection beyond that available to individual citizens. In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 86 L.Ed.2d 593, 105 S.Ct. 2939 (1985), five Justices signed separate opinions explicitly concluding that the First Amendment requires the equal treatment of media and nonmedia defendants and a sixth, Chief Justice Burger, agreed with this conclusion. Justice White was emphatic in opposing any media/nonmedia distinction in defamation law. None of our cases affords such a distinction; to the contrary, the Court has rejected it at every turn. It should be rejected again, particularly in this context, since it makes no sense to give the most protection to those publishers who reach the most readers ... with the most misinformation and do the most damage to private reputation. (Footnote omitted.) Dun & Bradstreet, at 773 (White, J., concurring).