Four cases

Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell, 1988

This case was depicted in a movie entitled "The People Versus Larry Flynt." The case was heard in a federal trial court in Roanoke, VA, and reviewed a few years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, brought by Rev. Jerry Falwell, was for libal and (under an obscure Virginia privacy law) "intentional infliction of emotional distress" after porn publisher Larry Flynt printed an ad parody in his Hustler Magazine.

The jury did not find for libel, but after being subjected to many large glossy photos from Hustler magaazine, the jury did convict Flynt of "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The US Supreme Court held that the ad was not a believable defamation, and the Virginia "intentnional infliction" law was not permissible as a form of libel action

The court said in its decision: "The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive.

After the ruling, Larry Flynt famously said: "If the law protects a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."

How did this change history?

It's often said that good cases can make bad law. This was a "good" case, a case brought by a preacher who had been insulted by a pornographer. And yet, if Flynt's conviction for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" against Jerry Falwall had become set in law, as an example to others, then free speech would have been stifled.

However, the US Supreme Court could not allow this case to undermine protections for freedom of speech and press that had been so long in the making. In fact, the US justices were angry that this obvious point had been lost on the 4th District Court of Appeals, where the case should have stopped before going all the way to the US Supreme Court..

Four media law cases that changed history Note from Prof. Kovarik -- These are not the only media law cases that have changed history, obviously. They are my favorite cases because they illustrate important principles or directions in law, and because they are recent enough to still have an impact on our lives.
New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 An important civil rights advertising case became the legal foundationfor most modern social and political discussion in the US. Sullivan is a crucial case in understanding how libel law is interpreted today. The case has had profound impacts in other countries as well. Arguments about adopting the "Sullivan standard" are frequently heard in Canada. Libel reforms in the UK that were enacted in the mid-2000s were also influenced by this case. The case began with a March, 1960 advertisement placed by Alabama civil rights activists in the New York Times headlined "Heed their Rising Voices." This advertisement promoted the civil rights movement in the South and described the hostile reaction by state and local officials. The ad also contined a few minor inaccuracies. The police commissioner of Montgomery, Ala., Louis B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, but he filed a libel suit in Alabama state court. At that point, the case was called Sullivan v New York Times. Sullivan won the case at the Alabama state trial court level. The New York Times filed an appeal with the Alabama state appeals court, and lost, and then with the state Supreme Court, and lost again. Those cases were called New York Times v Sullivan. (Notice how the plaintiff or appelant is the first named in the case, and how case names change as winners and losers change places). The New York Times then petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January, 1964. In its decision supporting the New York Times, the U.S. Supreme Court held "... that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on public officials." For a public official to successfully sue for libel, he or she would have to prove "actual malice," -- knowingly publishing something false or reckless disregard for the truth. Reasoning: The opinion starts by mildly objecting to Sullivan's status as a plaintiff, notes a lack of damages, then discusses the state court procedure. The opinion goes on to note that no state libel law can be insulated from federal Constitutional standards (in other words, batting down the state's rights argument), The opinion also notes that political advertising cannot be more regulated than political speech (although commercial advertising, at that time, was not seen as having the same protections as political speech). The court then goes through prior cases, noting that they do not (as Sullivan claimed) stop citizens from criticizing public officials. In fact, the court noted that a public official was found (in a prior case) to have a duty to criticize a member of the public. By the same logic, the public certainly has not only a right but also a duty to critisize public officials. The court also digressed into a complex historical discussion, noting the relationship of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 to the question of freedom of political speech and sedition. There is an underlying current of criticism in this opinion having to do with Southern resistance to the civil rights movement. The Virgina and Kentucky resolutions were not only reactions to federal sedition laws, but they were also used to justify Southern secession in 1860. The question of a state's sovereignty was settled by the Civil War and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Thus, state laws were said to be "incorporated" under federal jurisdiction, especially with regard to Constitutional liberties under the Bill of Rights. The court then considers the argument for a qualified privilege for citizens to discuss public officials, and then provides a standard by which future cases can be judged -- the actual malice standard. Under this actual malice or "Sullivan standard," a public official could successfully sue for libel only if a publisher knowingly published something false or was in "reckless disregard for the truth." Errors of fact, if published without malice, would not be enough to win a libel suit. Why did this case change history? It's fairly easy for a society to lose sight of its values and persecute its critics, and no critic, however well intentioned, can speak perfectly on every occasion. By insisting that free speech must be respected, and that minor errors could not be prosecuted, the courts helped the civil rights movement find an effective and non-violent path to social change. Without the give - and - take of free speech in a democracy, non-violent change is far less likely, and social tensions can build to exposive levels. As a police chief told a journalist at a civil rights rally in Charleston SC in the 1980s: "The more you do your job, the less I have to do mine."

How did this change history? The principle of individual rights is vital, but it is not an ultimate right. It is balanced against other public rights, and for good reason. As the public came to know about Sipple, it had to reconcile archaic ideas about personal behavior against the obvious example of heroism. Although Oliver Sipple suffered, the truth changed the course of history.		Sipple v Chronicle Publishing, 1984 Libel (defamation) is about untrue statements that hurt a person's reputation. But what about true statements that hurt private people by invading their privacy? When does the public's right to know supercede an individual's right to privacy? One of the most interesting examples of this dilemma is the case of Oliver Sipple. On September 23, 1975, Sipple happened to be in the right place at the right time. In the photo at left, the ex-marine lunges for Sara Jane Moore, who has just fired a shot in the direction of President Gerald Ford as he left a political meeting in in San Francisco. Sipple prevented Moore from firing a second shot, and President Ford was not hurt. The next day, the Los Angeles Times reported: "A husky ex-marine who was a hero in the attempted assassination of President Ford emerged Wednesday as a prominent figure in the gay community. And questions were raised in the gay community if Oliver (Bill) Sipple, 32, was being shunned by the White House because of his associations. Sipple, who lunged at Sara Jane Moore and deflected her revolver as she fired at the President, conceded that he is a member of the 'court' of Mike Caringi, who was elected 'emperor of San Francisco' by the gay community. So Sipple's past as a homosexual became part of the story of his heroism. Unfortunately, it also led to breaking off relations with his family in Michigan and a great deal of personal pain. Sipple sued the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers for revealing his secret life, but lost because he had become a public figure and questions about his character were deemed newsworthy. Reasoning: "There can be no privacy with respect to a matter which is already public or which has previously become part of the 'public domain.' Once the information is released, unlike a physical object, it cannot be recaptured and sealed," a California court said in Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing.

Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell, 1988 This case was depicted in a movie entitled "The People Versus Larry Flynt." The case was heard in a federal trial court in Roanoke, VA, and reviewed a few years later by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, brought by Rev. Jerry Falwell, was for libal and (under an obscure Virginia privacy law) "intentional infliction of emotional distress" after porn publisher Larry Flynt printed an ad parody in his Hustler Magazine. The jury did not find for libel, but after being subjected to many large glossy photos from Hustler magaazine, the jury did convict Flynt of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The US Supreme Court held that the ad was not a believable defamation, and the Virginia "intentnional infliction" law was not permissible as a form of libel action The court said in its decision: "The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive. After the ruling, Larry Flynt famously said: "If the law protects a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you." How did this change history? It's often said that good cases can make bad law. This was a "good" case, a case brought by a preacher who had been insulted by a pornographer. And yet, if Flynt's conviction for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" against Jerry Falwall had become set in law, as an example to others, then free speech would have been stifled. However, the US Supreme Court could not allow this case to undermine protections for freedom of speech and press that had been so long in the making. In fact, the US justices were angry that this obvious point had been lost on the 4th District Court of Appeals, where the case should have stopped before going all the way to the US Supreme Court..

		MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 2005 Point to point (P2P) file sharing systems can be banned when they allow contributory copyright infringement and when their principal object is the dissemination of copyrighted material. This was the case that stopped music file sharing. The court said that anyone who distributes a device with the object of infringing copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. This theory in some ways contradicts a 1984 case (Sony v University City Studios) in which use of home video recording devices was not considered to be a copyright infringement. As the Benedict.com copyright web site says of this case: " Finding itself stuck between the Sony rule and the perceived egregious conduct of P2Ps, the court found an 'out' by creating a new theory of secondary liability for copyright infringement – the Inducement Theory. “Sony’s rule limits imputing intent as a matter of law from the characteristics or uses of a distributed product. But nothing in Sony requires courts to ignore evidence of intent if there is such evidence, and the case was never meant to foreclose rules of fault-based liability derived from the common law.” The Inducement Test -- The Inducement Test states that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. The court goes to great pains to stress that the inducement rule premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise.
		How did this change history? For the first time, a publishing service that could be used both legally and illegally was found to be illegal. The P2P sites themselves, and not the user behavior, became the issue. Some would say that the rights of people had become subordinated to the rights of companies and their choice of technologies. While P2P code was not made illegal, the use and promotion of sites using P2P code with the intent to infringecopyright was.