Legal Document

398 U.S. 6 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1537 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 GREENBELT COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., Petitioners,v.Charles S. BRESLER. Number 413. Argued Feb. 24 and 25, 1970. Decided May 18, Roger Atlantic Clark, New York City, for petitioners. Abraham Chasanow, Greenbelt, Md., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners are publishers a small weekly newspaper, Greenbelt News Review, in city Maryland. respondent Bresler is prominent local real estate developer builder was, during period question, member Maryland House Delegates from neighboring district. In autumn 1965 was engaged negotiations with City Council to obtain certain zoning variances that would allow construction high-density housing on land owned by him. At same time attempting acquire another tract new high school. Extensive litigation concerning compensation school site seemed imminent, unless there should be an agreement its price between authorities, concurrent obviously provided both parties considerable bargainign leverage. 2 These joint evoked substantial controversy, several tumultuous council meetings were held at which many members community freely expressed their views. reported length news columns Review. Two articles consecutive editions paper stated public some people had characterized Bresler's negotiating position as 'blackmail.' word appeared times, without quotation marks, used once subheading within story.1 3 reacted these filing present lawsuit libel, seeking compensatory punitive damages. primary thrust his complaint articles, individually along other items published petitioners' imputed him crime blackmail. case went trial, jury awarded $5,000 damages $12,500 Appeals affirmed judgment. 253 Md. 324, 252 Reporter, 2nd 755. We granted certiorari consider constitutional issues presented. 396 874, 154, 133. 4 Times company versus Sullivan, 376 254, 84 710, 11 686, we Constitution permits 'public official' recover money libel only if he can show defamatory publication not false but uttered "actual malice'—that is, knowledge it or reckless disregard whether not.' Id., 279, 280, 726. Curtis Publishing Butts, 388 130, 87 1975, 18 1094, dealt restrictions upon suit brought figure.' 5 counsel conceded opening statement figure community. This concession clearly correct. deeply involved future development Greenbelt. He entered into agreements past, again such favors permit units type contemplated original plan. trying purpose building Negotiations significant concern progress, officials council. status thus fell even most restrictive definition supra, 154—155, 1991—1992 (opinion Harlan, J.). See also Pauling Globe-Democrat Co., 8 Cir., 362 Federal 188, 195—196, cert. denied, 909, 2097, 1347. Whether state legislator representing county, reason, meaning rule question need determine. Cf. Time, Incorporated Hill, 385 374, 390, 534, 543, 17 456; Rosenblatt Baer, 383 75, 86 n. 12, 669, 676, 15 597. For instructions this permitted finding liability under impermissible standard, whichever might considered occupy. charge jury, trial jduge repeatedly instructed them could publications been made malice they true false. instruction given one form half dozen times course judge's charge.2 judge then defined 'malice' include 'spite, hostility deliberate intention harm.' Moreover, found 'language' tiself.3 Thus find merely basis combination falsehood general hostility. 7 error magnitude, our decisions have clear. 'This constitutionally insufficient where discussion affairs concerned; '(w)e official allowed civil remedy establishes utterance falsity true." 84, 675. '(E)ven false, great principles secure freedom expression area preclude attaching adverse consequences any except knowing falsehood. Debate will uninhibited speaker must run risk proved court spoke out hatred; * *' Garrison Louisiana, 379 64, 73, 85 209, 215, 13 125. Beckley Newspapers Corporation Hanks, 389 81, 82, 88 197, 198, 19 248. And prohibition respect no different plaintiff supra. erroneous would, therefore, alone enough require reversal judgment before us. when 'it impossible know, view verdict returned' imposed permissible ground 'the reversed remanded.' 284, 728. 394—397, 545—547; 674; Stromberg California, 283 359, 367 368, 51 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117. 9 This, however, does end inquiry. As noted Times, '(t) Court's duty limited elaboration principles; proper cases review evidence make those applied. 'make independent examination whole record,' so assure ourselves constitute forbidden intrusion field free expression.' U.S., 285, S.Ct., 10 involves newspaper reports citizens concerned matters governmental interest importance. very subject matter reports, particular First Amendment concern. 'The maintenance opportunity political government may responsive changes obtained lawful means fundamental principle system.' 369, 536. 'Freedom discussion, fulfill historic function nation, embrace all about information needed appropriate enable society cope exigencies period.' Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 102, 60 736, 744, 1093.4 Because threat actual imposition pecuniary alleged defamation impair unfettered exercise freedoms, imposes stringent limitations scope liability.5 It disputed accurate truthful what said hearings council.6 sense, cannot claimed guilty 'departure standards investigation reporting ordinarily adhered responsible publishers,' 155, 1991 J.), much less use statements 12 contention rather, speakers meeting, using 'blackmail,' charging blackmail, since knew committed crime, liable theory submitted Appeals. 360—364, 755, 775—778. reasons follow, hold impermissible—that law, 'blackmail' circumstances slander spoken, There debates sessions regarding who lived themselves heated, controversial usually are. During arguments opponents taken Review performing wholly legitimate full columns. If truncated distorted way extract context meetings, case. But full. Their headlines, 'School Site Stirs Up Council—Rezoning Deal Offer Debated' 'Council Rejects By 4—1 High School Deal,' clear readers pending negotiations. proposal accurately fully described each article, referred others indicated thought unreasonable. 14 simply believe reader reached either article understood exactly meant: legal proposals being criticized. No words commission criminal offense.7 On contrary, careless perceived more than rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithet extremely Indeed, record completely devoid anyone anywhere else charged crime. To infliction financial publishing two subvert press, protected Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, reverse remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 16 ordered. Judgment remanded. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT October 14, 1965, following story Review: SCHOOL SITE STIRS UP COUNCIL REZONING DEAL OFFER DEBATED Dorothy Sucher 20 Delay lever pressuring endorse bid higher density rezoning large tracts land; heard well-attended special meeting Monday night, Oct. 11. 21 past nine months, Board Education has Consolidated Syndicates, (Charles Bresler-Theodore Lerner), site. landowners, developers Charlestowne Village, own undeveloped 22 refused accept Education's price, condemnation already delayed three *. Originally, hoped open September 1966. 23 Some ago, became known agree help (Parcels 2, totaling 230 acres) near center refused, threatened delay acquisition long possible through courts. 'deal' termed Monday's rumored recently. categorically opposed Nathan Shinderman, Homes, (GHI), read lengthy GHI president Charles Schwan Blackmail 25 'It seems slight blackmail,' commented Mrs. Marjorie Bergemann echoed audience. Councilman David Champion, denied explaining rather 'refer (i.e., negotiations—Ed.) two-way street.' 27 Speaking floor, Gerald Gough, commented: 'Everyone knows there's school—just walk halls Point. says, 'we'll meet your you need.' my opinion, it's highly unethical.' Probable 28 Mayor Edgar Smith remarked refusing developer's terms did necessarily mean loss site; probably year 29 Among parents Joseph Rosetti, said: 'I children going school, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions adhere Master Plan overcrowd town dense development. stand children's discomfort, give blackmailing scheme.' 30 week, carried sequel earlier story: REJECTS BY HIGH Mary Lou Williamson 31 More 150 came hear how respond pressure exchange uncontested consummation sale senior night. 32 sat quietly listening hour citizen voting reject (4—1) Dave Champion dissenting. Citizens Speak 33 A procession took floor impassioned speeches—some prepared texts, extemporaneously. mayor occasionally caution refrain engaging personalities. 34 Albert Herling suggested skulduggery postponement. Although praised Manager's report, criticized section entitled 'Risks Conclusions,' saying negative extreme. list positive steps ought take: 1) fight 'blackmail'; 2) Education—no deals; 3) District (zoning authority) unanimous opposition requested R—30 zoning; 4) seek swiftest settlement. 'For anything less,' Herling, 'Would believe. chips down, you'll do.' 35 Pilski asked audience cared speak support proposal. 36 Only James Martin floor. action advance rights develop land. suggested, example, GHI's long-range planning committee doing thing months ago. 'frame homes (GHI) far atrocious considering.' 37 WHITE, concurring. 38 concur join insofar rests contained jury. do not, remainder 39 Respondent libeled least four newspaper: (1) conduct amounted 'a accompanied column subheading; (2) 'unethical trade'; (3) allegation 'skulduggery,' characterize Bresler; (4) 'started against failure corrections accordance county standards.' Petitioners contended blackmail intended sense libelous event malice, them. 40 instructing as: 41 words, pictures symbols imputes person disgraceful dishonest immoral otherwise injurious private character credit minds respectable class 42 '(T)he burden establish preponderance disgraceful, *.' App. E. 189. 43 With dispute over told jury: 44 '(I)f unable conclude bears ascribed plaintiff, equally balanced issue, defendant. 45 'In considering complained of, whole—the say talking serious, (sic) number publications—and determine ordinary entire thereof facts shown evidence. 46 'Where susceptible meanings up attributable it, whom addressed read. reaching decision surrounding publication, includes admitted.' 189—190. 47 defendant claim allegations true. 48 exception none foregoing although motion n.o.v. plead truth meant defendants adopt plaintiff. 10—11. 49 returned 50 affirmed. aside federal protections urged petitioners, jury's subsequent thereon supported instant sub-heading qualification. issue repeated next week 21. appellants argue noncriminal American Stores (Co.) Byrd, supra (229 5, 181 333). appellants. 52 having (as was) crime.' 351—352, 770 (1969). 53 publications: 54 addition 'An unethical trade', 'skulduggery', business contractor per se.' 354, A.2d, 772. 55 sense. reference 'skulduggery' pointed quoted source word; publishers' characterization events. 56 'There little doubt indicate part ridicule contempt. properly hearing were, also, serious truthfulness.' 360, 775. 57 homeowners started regard defects built truth. 58 reversing Appeals, deny recovery falsely accusing derogatory 'injurious person.' authority decide understood, nor conclusion What cold judge, quite wrong concluding 'ordinary readers' charged. proposition average import conduct, agree. fact double normal usage itself evidence; challenging reading majority superior insight 59 hold, arguably good-faith, nonreckless belief so. Should 686 (1964), extended injury reputation caused employing meaning, libelous, whenever publisher claims good faith innocent meaning? think not. effort effectuate policies recognizing difficulties ascertaining investigating eye publication. Absent protection 'facts' subsequently prove danger communication suppressed. thing, involving self-censorship, immunize professional communicators ambiguous language guard possibility carry meanings, seriously damage object comment eyes reader. see reason why skilled calling standard craft assume misunderstood—if are—by publications. requires media events occurring preferable directly carve wider privilege reporting. malice. error, irrelevant phase it: assumes charged, conceded, admittedly 61 Nevertheless, verdict; impute damaging libelous. likely correct basing allegation. Given possibility, 1117 (1931). 62 BLACK, DOUGLAS joins, concurs set Black's concurring 293, 733, dissenting 170, 1999, 1094 (1967), Douglas' 80, 218, 125 (1964). relevant portions printed appendix excerpts illustrative: 'Accordingly fair comment, criticism '* and/or published, libel. law recognizes importance extent grants immunity foolish prejudicial true, '(Y)our falsity, false.' 'With consideration presence defendant, infer done excessive, intemperate, unreasonable abusive defy reasonable moved toward plaintiff.' Note, Scope Protection Good-Faith Defamatory Error, Yale L.J. 642, 644—645; Pedrick, Freedom Press Law Libel: Modern Revised Translation, Cornell L.Q. 581, 592—593. 1347; Kalven, Case: Note Central Meaning Amendment,' 1964 Sup.Ct.Rev. 191, 221. testified, 'Certainly nothing here happened. pretty anything, conservative presenting comments.' reporter wrote testified: really twice like story, again. 'Q. who? 'A. meeting. felt left wouldn't writing article.' Under consists threatening accuse indictable which, bring contempt disrepute, extorting money, goods, things value. Md.Ann.Code, Article 27, §§ 561—563 (1967 Repl.Vol.). course, indication approaching conduct.

Classification Label: 2