Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Significance, Freedom To Defame, Chilling Effect, Private Citizens And Public Figures, Impact, Shield Laws

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Further Readings

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Significance

The Supreme Court found that for topics of public interest First Amendment protections of the press outweigh libel common law even in cases involving private citizens. The private individual, not the press, must prove the falseness of alleged smear statements. The finding held that private individuals and public personalities face the same rigorous standards for winning defamation suits against th…

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Freedom To Defame

Defamation is the smearing of someone's reputation either by speaking (slander) or by writing (libel). Common law normally assumes statements determined defamatory through malice (hateful intent) or "careless indifference" are false until the speaker proves them truthful. No simple guidelines identifying what constitutes defamation exist due largely to infinite possibilities. Consequently, the Sup…

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Chilling Effect

The Court was once again asked "to define the proper (balance) between the law of defamation and the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment." The Court first determined this case involved a private citizen, but topics of public interest. Therefore, based on precedence of the New York Times decision, constitutional rule prevailed over common law in this case. Proving truthful…

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Private Citizens And Public Figures

Justice Stevens, joined in dissent by Chief Justice Burger and Justices White and Rehnquist, sharply disagreed that private citizens should be treated the same as public and governmental figures. They should not be required to prove defamatory statements are also false. Stevens wrote the media should be clearly held responsible for false or irresponsible statements and the common defamation law of…

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Impact

Since 1964 the Supreme Court dramatically revised common libel law. The Court regularly rejected the common law balancing between First Amendment speech protections and privacy in favor of rigidly protecting the press. This decision, further expanded in Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell (1988), had far reaching implications. Even where defamatory statements are false, a private individual can rarel…

Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps - Shield Laws

Shield laws protect journalists from revealing sources of their information. The intent is to extend this privilege to journalists as a means of supporting a vital press in the United States. The first state enacting such a law was Maryland, in 1898. Half of the states had adopted similar laws by 1973. In 1975, Congress passed the Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which qualifies the privilege granted…