Brief for the Petitioners

LOUIS M. LOEB
T. ERIC EMBRY
MARVIN E. FRANKEL
RONALD S. DIANA
DORIS WECHSLER
LORD, DAY & LORD
BEDDOW, EMBRY & BEDDOW
OF COUNSEL

HERBERT BROWNELL
THOMAS F. DALY
25 BROADWAY
NEW YORK 4, NEW YORK

HERBERT WECHSLER
435 WEST 116TH ST.
NEW YORK 27, NEW YORK
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY

Index

Opinions Below

Jurisdiction

Questions Presented

Statement

1. The Nature of the Publication
2. The Allegedly Defamatory Statements
3. The Impact of the Statements on Respondent's Reputation
4. The Circumstances of the Publication
5. The Response to the Demand for a Retraction
6. The Rulings on the Merits
7. The Jurisdiction of the Alabama Courts

Summary of Argument

Argument

• I. The decision rests upon a rule of liability for criticism of official conduct that abridges freedom of the press
  First: The State Court's Misconception of the Constitutional Issues
  Second: Seditious Libel and the Constitution
  Third: The Absence of Accommodation of Conflicting Interests
  Fourth: The Relevancy of the Official's Privilege
  Fifth: The Protection of Editorial Advertisements
• II. Even if the rule of liability were valid on its face, the judgment rests on an invalid application
  First: The Scope of Review
  Second: The Failure to Establish Injury or Threat to Respondent's Reputation
  Third: The Magnitude of the Verdict
• III. The assumption of jurisdiction in this action by the Courts of Alabama contravenes the Constitution
  First: The Finding of a General Appearance
  Second: The Territorial Limits of Due Process
  Third: The Burden on Commerce
  Fourth: The Freedom of the Press

Conclusion

Appendix A

Appendix B