Historic Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch Supreme Court Decisions and Online Social Media Libel Law

This article re-examines two historic Supreme Court's decisions—the 1964 Times v. Sullivan and the 1974 Gertz v. Welch—as they apply to the digital era. The Court's decision in Sullivan established the federal legal guidelines for a victim to prove a libel case including actual malice. In Gertz v. Welch the Court established three categories of public figures who must prove actual malice in a libel claim. The article reviews both cases within the context of social media defamation claims. The authors conclude that the Supreme Court decisions in Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch are still relevant in the era of online communication and social media.

Contemporary United States Law Regarding Online Social Media Libel Standards on the 50th Year Anniversary of Times v Sullivan and 40th Year Anniversary of Gertz v Welch

Abstract2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the US Supreme Court decisions in Times v Sullivan and 40th anniversary of Gertz v Welch. These two decisions by the US Supreme Court had an important legal impact in the United States on federal law pertaining to libel, specifically proving actual malice and who is defined as a public figure or public official. This article analyzes both Supreme Court decisions within the context of present day online social media libel controversies. It also analyzes three recent federal court rulings where judges had to issue decisions based on Sullivan and Gertz’s actual malice and public figure legal principles. The article concludes that both Sullivan and Gertz are still relevant to how other federal, American courts decide issues related to defamation published in social media.

Historic Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch Supreme Court Decisions and Online Social Media Libel Law

This article re-examines two historic Supreme Court's decisions—the 1964 Times v. Sullivan and the 1974 Gertz v. Welch—as they apply to the digital era. The Court's decision in Sullivan established the federal legal guidelines for a victim to prove a libel case including actual malice. In Gertz v. Welch the Court established three categories of public figures who must prove actual malice in a libel claim. The article reviews both cases within the context of social media defamation claims. The authors conclude that the Supreme Court decisions in Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch are still relevant in the era of online communication and social media.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

O presente artigo consiste na análise da doutrina da actual malice criada no caso New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, bem como suas implicações sobre a jurisprudência da Suprema Corte americana, tais como a ampliação de críticas voltadas contra o Governo e as pessoas que possuem maior visibilidade em sociedade. Ademais, é efetuada uma averiguação dos efeitos positivos e negativos da adoção da doutrina da actual malice pela Corte, não restando dúvidas de que foi um avanço em termos de liberdade de imprensa e de liberdade de expressão.

Restaurant Reviewer Liability For Defamation In A Global Context

A restaurant review may contain statements that the restaurant owners would consider defamatory. While technically there is no bar to a successful defamation suit, there are numerous obstacles, including the opinion nature of the review, the fair comment qualified privilege, and free-speech jurisprudence that requires actual malice before a plaintiff can prevail in a defamation suit against a public figure. In jurisdictions outside of the United States, there are similar restrictions that will also create obstacles to the success of the lawsuit. Although the success of the suit would be more likely under other nations laws, the obstacles still do not rise to the level of a prohibition on such lawsuits. Any business on either side of the dispute the writer/publisher of the review vs. the restaurant and its owners needs to be aware of the evolving law and where a defamation case may or may not be successful. This article examines and discusses obstacles to successful defamation cases in order to provide guidance for businesses that are or may be involved in such litigation.