Legal Document

379 U.S. 64 85 Supreme Court Reporter 209 13 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 125 Jim GARRISON, Appellant,v.STATE OF LOUISIANA. Number 4. Reargued Oct. 19, 1964. Decided Nov. 23, Eberhard Pacific KF135 P2 Deutsch, New Orleans, La., for appellant. Jack Federal KF105 F3 Gremillion, Baton Rouge, appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellant is District Attorney Orleans Parish, Louisiana. During a dispute with eight judges Criminal he held press conference at which issued statement disparaging their judicial conduct. As result, was tried without jury before judge from another parish and convicted criminal defamation under Louisiana Defamation Statute.1 The principal charges alleged to be defamatory were his attribution large backlog pending cases inefficiency, laziness, excessive vacations judges, accusation that, by refusing authorize disbursements cover expenses undercover investigations vice in had hampered efforts enforce laws. In impugning motives, said: 2 'The have now made it eloquently clear where sympathies lie regard aggressive use DA's funds pay cost closing down Canal Street clip joints. * 3 '* This raises interesting questions about racketeer influences on our vacation-minded judges.'2 4 affirmed conviction, 244 La. 787, 154 So.2d 400. trial court State both rejected appellant's contention that statute unconstitutionally abridged freedom expression. We noted probable jurisdiction appeal. 375 900, 84 195, 11 142. Argument first heard 1963 Term, case ordered restored calendar reargument, 377 986, 1906, 12 1042. reverse. 5 i. 6 York Times company versus Sullivan, 376 254, 710, 686, we Constitution limits state power, civil action brought public official criticism conduct, an award damages false 'made 'actual malice'—that is, knowledge or reckless disregard whether not.' 279—280, 726. At outset, must decide whether, view differing history purposes libel, rule also power impose sanctions conduct officials. hold does. 7 Where officials concerned, see no merit argument libel statutes serve interests distinct those secured laws, therefore should not subject same limitations.3 common law, truth defense libel. Although victim true but publication might been unjustly damaged reputation speaker still punishable since remedy designed avert possibility utterance would provoke enraged breach peace. That well stated Edward Livingston's explanation provisions proposed penal code Louisiana: 8 'In most cases, connexion between cause effect exists this chapter subsequent one—Of Duels. Defamation, either real supposed, combats laws yet able suppress. If lawgivers originally condescended some attention passions feelings whom they legislate, these appeals arms never usurped superior laws; affording satisfaction wounded honour, drove individuals avenge all wrongs description, denied place law. Insults formed title claimed exclusive offence.' Livingston. A System Penal Law Louisiana, 177 (1833).4 9 Even day, however, preference remedy, enabled frustrated trade chivalrous damages, substantially eroded peace justification fact, earlier, more violent, times, virtually pre-empted field defamation; except as weapon against seditious prosecution fell into virtual desuetude.5 Changing mores disappearance prosecutions lend support observation modern conditions, when law generally accepted substitute private physical measures, can hardly urged maintenance requires defamation.' Emerson, Toward General Theory First Amendment, 72 Yale L.J. 877, 924 (1963).6 absence Proposed Official Draft Model Code American Institute any pattern reflects consensus. ALI Reporters, explaining omission, gave cogent evidence obsolescence justification: 10 'It goes saying cannot justified merely fact evil damaging person ways entitle him maintain suit. Usually reserve harmful behavior exceptionally disturbs community's sense security. It seems evident personal calumny falls neither classes U.S.A., inappropriate control, probably accounts paucity near desuetude legislation country. *' Code, Tent. 13, 1961, § 250.7, Comments, 44. Reporters recommended only narrowly drawn reach words tending peace, such sustained Chaplinsky Hampshire, 315 568, 62 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031, speech, group vilification, 'especially likely lead disorders,' Beauharnais Illinois, 343 250, 725. supra, 45. But Louisiana's rejection clear-and-present-danger standard irrelevant application its statute, 833, So.2d, 416, coupled limitation itself speech calculated breaches leads us conclude sort statute. next consider historical utterances published 'with good motives justifiable ends'7 incorporated applies statutes; particular, ask permits negating defense, does, showing malice ill-will. 'good motives' restriction many constitutions reflect Alexander Hamilton's unsuccessfully formula People Croswell, Johns.Cas. 337, 352 (N.Y. 1804), liberalized common-law denying truth. See Ray, Truth: Defense Libel, 16 Minn.L.Rev. 43, 46—49 (1931); Kelly, Libel Free Speech, Kan.L.Rev. 295, 326—328 (1958). need concerned serves legitimate interest extent abhorrence 'a man's forgotten misconduct, misconduct relation, interest, wantonly raked up, world, ground being true.? 69 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates Hist. Eng. 1230 (3d series) (H.L. June 1, 1843) (Report Lord Campbell) (emphasis supplied).8 event, business, overborne larger Constitution, dissemination truth.9 short, agree Hampshire Burnham, N.H. 34, 42—43, 31 Am.Dec. 217, 221 (1837): 'If upon lawful occasion making publication, has truth, more, there sound principle make liable, even if actuated express malice. 14 said publish ends. too narrow. occasion—a legal right publication—and matter true, end justifiable, case, sufficient.' 15 Moreover, false, great principles secure expression area preclude attaching adverse consequences knowing falsehood. Debate issues will uninhibited run risk proved spoke out hatred; did speak hatred, honestly believed contribute free interchange ideas ascertainment Under like rule, permitting finding based intent inflict harm, rather than harm through falsehood, 'it becomes hazardous popular politician, result dishonest incompetent shielded.' Noel, Public Officers Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 893 (1949). '(i)n political figure may almost impossible show ill-will selfish motives.' Id., 893, n. 90. Similar considerations supported holdings federal officers enjoy absolute privilege within scope duty, regardless existence Barr Matteo, 360 564, 79 1335, 1434; Howard Lyons, 593, 1331, 1454; cf. Gregoire Biddle, Reporter, 2nd 579 (C.A.2d Cir. 1949). What Alabama's Times, U.S., 282—283, S.Ct., 727, equally rule: give servants unjustified over serve, critics fair equivalent immunity granted themselves.' allowed establishes falsity true. reasons led so 724—726, apply less force because criminal. constitutional guarantees compel remedy. Truth discussion affairs concerned. And erroneous inevitable debate, protected freedoms are 'breathing space' 'need survive' *,' 271—272, 721, statements high degree awareness demanded sanctions. For concerning self-expression; essence self-government. Fourteenth Amendments embody 'profound national commitment debate uninhibited, robust, wide-open, include vehement, caustic, sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks government officials.' 270, 721. 17 put different cast question. honest utterance, inaccurate, further fruitful exercise does follow lie, knowingly deliberately official, immunity. time Amendment adopted, today, unscrupulous enough skillful deliberate falsehood effective tool unseat servant topple administration. Cf. Riesman, Democracy Defamation: Fair Game Comment I, 42 1085, 1088—1111 (1942). used ends automatically bring protective mantle Constitution. known once odds premises democratic orderly manner economic, social, change effected. Calculated class 'are essential part exposition ideas, slight social value step benefit derived them clearly outweighed order morality. 572, 769, 1031. Hence do protection. II. 18 find difficulty bringing purview officials, entitled rule. viewed statement, constituted attack integrity sustaining defamatory, 'racketeer influences' applied anyone suggests imputes influenced practice fraud, deceit, trickery, cheating, dishonesty'; enjoyed 300 days vacation 19 months connotes violation 'Deadhead' LSA-R.S. 14:138, Payroll Fraud'; 'Other expressions set Bill Information connote malfeasance office. 14:134; Article IX, Sec. La.Const. 1921.' concluded 'Defendant's criticisms one conducted session. charged contain honesty *.' 834—835, 417—418. think, considered constituting purely defamation. judges' business Court.10 Of course, performs duties tend affect private, public, reputation. rendered inapplicable official's reputation, harmed. public-official protects paramount flow information people servants. To end, anything touch fitness office relevant. Few attributes germane dishonesty, malfeasance, improper motivation, though characteristics character.11 Kansas Coleman MacLennan, speaking candidates: 20 'Manifestly candidate surrender scrutiny much character affects office, liberal more. But, measuring candidate's profert character, always remembered authority believing grapes grow thorns, nor figs thistles.' 78 Kan. 711, 739, 98 281, 291, L.R.A.,N.S., 361 (1908). III. 21 Applying authoritatively interpreted incorporates constitutionally invalid standards context For, contrary absolutely prohibits punishment truthful criticism, directs malice,' 14:48; Cox, 246 748, 756, 167 352, 355 (1964), handed after decision; Bennett, La.L.Rev. 6, 34 malice' defined decisions below mean 'hatred, ill enmity wanton desire injure 851, 423. unconstitutional forbids statements, unless false. punishes test ill-will; established, punished reasonable belief conviction solely sufficed court's ill-will, enmity, injure. rested additional findings 22 inconceivable me Defendant could belief, Judges guilty what statement. These men honored very offices. accusations them. Therefore, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions believe qualified LSA—R.S., Title 14, Section 49, applicable. 23 holding applying test. reasonable-belief reckless-disregard-of-truth standard. According opinion, 'an ordinarily prudent man assign just reason for'; suggestion responsibility disappears proof ordinary care revealed laid keyed care; defeasance conditioned, mere negligence, 24 Reversed. 25 BLACK, DOUGLAS joins, concurring. 26 greater length my opinions concurring 293, 733, dissenting 267, 725, 736, 96 919, infra, Page 80, concur reversing appellant Garrison, applicable Fourteenth, every having Government fine, imprison assess Giboney Empire Storage Ice Co., 336 490, 498, 684, 688, 93 834, other expressing others views unwholesome, unpatriotic, stupid dangerous. mistaken thinks requiring 'malicious' 'defamatory' really create substantial hurdle block punishing who criticize way Indeed, 'malicious,' 'seditious,' evil-sounding often invoked punish affairs. Fining sending jail criticizing jeopardizes free, open guarantees, wholly stifle it. wait later, compare Betts Brady, 316 455, 1252, 1595, overruled Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799, country old, discredited English Star Chamber 27 DOUGLAS, BLACK 28 am hearty agreement conclusion unconstitutional. Yet feel gloss 'the speech' (and results cases) makes basic guarantee unrecognizable.1 29 Recently majority Amendments, actual 279, relevant libel—that 30 needed, inferences facts found easily oblige. How sit review cold record (cf. 285—288, 728—730) commonplace life heat passion subtly turn fact? 'reckless truth' basis nebulous met. presence critical actions involving nothing it, 'clear present danger.' While remains same, written robs vitality. 32 Why willing protect pale tame? 33 because, Brother said,2 Rights constantly watered 'balancing' says think needed well-ordered society. Irving Brant recently balancing developed recent years disarm trench 'Congress shall law.' exactly done spiritual parent, British 'common libel,' (to repeat May), 'Every libeler outraged sentiments dominant party." Seditious Libel: Myth Reality, 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 18—19 (1964). 35 decided narrowest margins, misfit system line dictates Amendment. face 'speech' side overt acts other. two blend. expressed idea before: 'Freedom suppressed if, closely brigaded illegal inseparable it.' Roth States, 354 514, 77 1324 (dissenting opinion). Unless kind punished; semblance here. 36 little added Holmes nearly half century ago: 37 'I disagree left force. History notion. conceived shown repentance Sedition Act 1798 *,3 repaying fines imposed.' Abrams 250 616, 630, 40 17, 22, 63 1173 38 philosophy 'false, scandalous malicious' writings (1 Statutes-at-Large 596) today States. 'entirely creation Chamber.'4 disquieting know instruments destruction abroad land today. APPENDIX TO OPINION MR. JUSTICE CONCURRING. Excerpt Madison's Address, January 1799: 41 sedition act presents scene expected early friends then admitted sovereignties diminished powers specifically enumerated, necessary carry specified effect. Now, deduced implication; inferred Congress possess similar legislation; whence endowed whatsoever, stripped reserved, concurrent claims Legislature. offspring tremendous pretensions, death-wound sovereignty 43 'For honor understanding, allured adoption affectation defining powers, whilst preamble admit construction erect limited none. On contrary, objects deemed attainable particular enumeration specification each Government; reserving people, vain search embracing press. 44 'Had despoiled generality preamble, whatever instrumental towards union, justice, tranquillity, defence, general welfare, preservation liberty, frivolous powers. 45 vicious extreme calumniate meritorious servants; artful arouse indignation conceal usurpation. Calumny forbidden usurpation injures individuals, usurpation, redressed judicatures; controlled Ought mischievous, hateful calumny, which, injurious, pernicious? correction defective. Every libellous writing receive courts, juries summoned officer, appointment President, influence pleasure Government, injured citizens. Nor distinction empowering exclusively directed officer assuming protecting citizen extend citizen, conceivable arise individuals. 46 answer this, possesses inherent self-preservation, entitling purpose. 47 'This repetition doctrine implication expediency language, admits decisive answer, namely, defined, inherent, implied, expedient, obviously creatures ambition; expended otherwise superfluous. Powers extracted sources indefinitely multiplied aid armies patronage, impossibility controlling demarcation, presently terminate reasoning, ultimately swallow up sovereignties. 48 'So insatiable love resorted licentiousness purpose converting third amendment* dictated lively anxiety preserve freedom, instrument abridging Thus justifies precaution usurpation; thus amendment universally quiet fear adduced source produced terror alarm. liberty Protean implication, ever ready work varying shape. By help, licentious escape restriction. religious excluded exclusion amount establishment religion, licentious. denominate religion heretical licentious, proceed suppression. Remember precedents established positive power; nation reposes pillow confidence, sooner later deadly lethargy. Remember, also, mankind indebted dispelled clouds long encompassed disclosing her genuine lustre, disseminating salutary doctrines. 50 sophistry forcibly exposed late memorial envoys Minister French Republic, here you own words: 51 "The genious administer Government. Among sacred America, among rights forming bulwark contemplates awful reverence approach cautious circumspection, importance deeply impressed mind carried excess; degenerated licentiousness, seen lamented, discovered. Perhaps allied; perhaps shoot stalk wounding vitally plant torn. However desirable measures correct enslaving press, devised America. No regulations exist enable suppress calumnies invectives individual choose offer eye, courts alike themselves injured.' 52 'As bound look security probity amidst frailties man, barriers accused prove charge. moment disguise unconstitutionality act, recollected punishable, susceptible proof. subjecting regulation, imprisonment, inflicted range human injuriously restrained. obligations due solemn discharge accountable God alone; yet, precedent ascertained, pretended creed accused. then, commits double sacrilege arresting progress perfection, placing danger opinions. allow crimes punishment, provided exhibit defense? doctrine, united assertion, offence, correcting Congress, opens hideous volumes turns loose utmost invention ambition, ages, debauched morals, depressed shackled despotism, deluged scaffold blood.' VI Writings James Madison, 1790—1802, Pages 333—337 (Hunt ed. 1906). 53 GOLDBERG, 54 'no Ante, 76. 297, 735, 'that accords citizens unconditional conduct.' 305, 739. case; prosecution. view, '(i)f meaning, (criminal civil) governors likewise Constitution.' 299, 736. La.Rev.Stat.1950, Tit. 14: 47. 'Defamation malicious manner, party defamed, tends: '(1) expose contempt, ridicule, deprive confidence intercourse; '(2) memory deceased ridicule; '(3) person, corporation, association persons occupation. 'Whoever crime fined three thousand dollars, imprisoned year, both. 48. Presumption 'Where non-privileged presumed motive shown. convict offender. 49. Qualified 'A proved, following situations: report judicial, legislative, proceeding, argument, course same. comment upon, '(a) respect affairs; '(b) thing proprietor thereof offers explains public. interested communication, stands relation former afford supposing innocent. '(4) attorney proceeding.' La.Rev.Stat.1962 Cum.Supp., 50. Absolute arose Fines Fees Fund, defray Attorney's office; motion approval After took incumbent refused approve disbursement Fund furnishings When went prior retirement September 1962, obtained judge, allegedly misrepresenting withdrawn objection. Thereupon, October 5, adopted approved concurrence five judges. 26, ruled agents commercial Bourbon districts approved, doubt legality few November retired, turned original Attorney. prosecuted. affirming down, relied 476, 486—487, 1304, 1309—1310, 1498, 266, libelous protection hence danger. 833 416—417. 268—269, 719, 720, forecloses inquiry criminal, transgresses limitations Whether satisfy standards. reflected current His suggested appear 421—425. 369, exculpating incorrect qualifications 386(2), observations tendencies officers, allegations Holdsworth, Law, 207—208 (2d 1937); 296—303 letter Jackson, dated 11, 1940, addressed Senator Millard E. Tydings, 87 Cong.Rec. 5836—5837, policy Attorneys prosecute jurisdictions statutory ends, variant thereof: Alaska Stat.1962, 11.15.320; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.1956, 353; Cal.Const.1879, 9; Cal.Pen.Code 1955, 251; D.C.Code Ann.1961, 22—2303; Fla.Const.1885, Declaration Rights, 13; Hawaii Rev.Laws 294—6; Idaho 1948, 4803; Ill.Const.1870, 2, 4; Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, 38, 2; Iowa Const.1846, 7; 737.4; Const., 1859, 11; Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann.1949, 2403; Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.1959, 278, (without malice'); Mich.Const.1963, 19; Minn.Stat.1961, 634.05; Miss.Const.1890, 3, Miss.Code 1942 (recompiled 1956), 2269; Mont.Const.1889, III, 10; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. 1947, 94—2804; Nev.Const.1864, Nev.Rev.Stat.1961, 200.510, subd. 3; N.J.Const.1947, 6; N.Y.Const.1938, 8; N.Y. McKinney's Consol.Laws, 40, 1342; N.D.Const.1889, N.D.Cent.Code 1960, 12—28—04; Ohio Const.1851, Okla.Const.1907, 22; Okla.Stat.1951, 21, 774; Ore.Rev.Stat.1953, 163.420; R.I.Const.1843, 20; R.I.Gen.Laws Ann.1956, 9—6—9; S.D.Const.1889, VI, 5; S.D.Code 1939, 13.3406; Utah Const.1895, 15; Ann.1953, 77—31—30; Wash.Rev.Code 1951, 9.58.020; Wis.Const.1848, Wis.Stat.1961, 942.01(3); Wyo.Const.1890, 20. England, Campbell's Act, Vict., 96, (1843) (for benefit). operate complete defense: Colo.Const.1876, II, Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann.1953, 8—13; Bearman People, 91 Colo. 486, 493, 425, 427 (1932); Ind.Const.1851, Bush, 122 Ind. 42, Northeastern N59 677 (1890); Mo.Const.1945, Mo.Rev.Stat., 1959, 559.440; Nev.Const.1875, Neb.Rev.Stat., 1943 (1956 reissue), 28—440; Razee State, 73 Neb. 732, 103 Northwestern N69 438 (1905); N.M.Const.1911, 17; N.M.Stat.Ann.1953 (1964 replacement), 40A—11—1 (false statement); N.C.Gen.Stat.1953, 15—168; S.C.Const.1895, 21; S.C.Code 16—161; Vt.Stat.Ann.1958, 6560. concerned: Ala.Const.1901, (but Ala. 350 defense); Del.Const.1897, Del.Code 3506; Ky.Const.1891, Me.Const.1820, Me.Rev.Stat.1954, 130, 34; 217 (1837); Pa.Const.1874, Tenn.Const.1870, Tenn.Code Ann.1955, §§ 39—2704, 2603; Tex.Const.1876, Vernon's Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.1954, Tex.Pen.Code Ann., 1953, Arts. 1290(1), 1290(4). introduced, unclear operates Ark.Const.1874, Ark.Stat.1947 41, Conn.Const.1818, First, Ga.Const.1877, 2—201, art. par. 1; Ga.Code 26—2103; Md.Code 1957, 75, Va.Code Ann.1950 (1960 18.1—255, 18.1—256. point. Payne, W.Va. 102, 104 Southeastern S6 288, 1465 (1920). recognize involved libels, totally unrelated affairs, concerned; therefore, say taken intimating impact discrete libels. privacy, evolved meet reservations, recognizes severe figures newsworthy Sidis F—R Pub. Corp., 113 806, 809-810, 138 1940). factual comment, provide alone, however vituperative, lack care, addition assertions. formulations fair-comment Harper James, Torts, 5.28, 458 (1956); Note, Comment, Harv.L.Rev. 1207, 1213 (1949); Restatement, 606, b, 567 (1938). See, e.g., 1290(2). speech'; Due Process Clause puts restraint. There school thought, far minority, holds process watereddown version speech. HARLAN 500—503, 1317—1319, 1498. obtained, given burdened somewhat conditions. Great 60 (Cahn 1963): reality (balancing) returns legislative supremacy existed England Framers determined all. hand, denies judiciary measure Rights. apparently reducing rational basis, gives Court, along overriding plain commands weighty interest. effect, changes direction form 'reasonable." Act—a enactment here, appended Appendix. 11. 'What called Chamber, iniquitous tribunal history. injected fiat Coke perpetuated procedures stifled opinion. affiliation, illegitimate descent constructive treason heresy, repugnant Untied States.' Brant, 5. Third submitted 25, 1789.

Classification Label: 2