Inc. Westmoreland v. CBS

At the same time the Westmoreland case was pending, another prominent military figure was also pursuing a libel lawsuit. Israeli general Ariel Sharon sued Time, Inc., which published Time magazine, for having printed an article on 14 February 1983 that accused Sharon of encouraging certain Lebanese militia forces to massacre some Palestinians in 1982. This case was the first occasion a major foreign official had attempted to use the U.S. court system to sue for libel for statements concerning their official actions. The case was tried from November of 1984 to January of 1985 in New York, City before Judge Abraham D. Sofaer. A jury found Time not guilty due to lack of actual malice, and Sharon dropped his case. However, jury members made a special point of stating that they thought Time had acted "negligently and carelessly" in preparing the article.

Generals Westmoreland and Sharon faced similar obstacles in their cases. Despite strong evidence of press misconduct, under the standard set by New York Times v. Sullivan they could not meet the difficult showing of proof required of public figures to win libel suits. Many in foreign countries were astounded by the stiff standards in U.S. courts. Even though statements were found to be defamatory and false in the Sharon case, they still were not considered libelous under the Sullivan standard. In the Sharon case, and other cases involving foreign officials, the press may not be able to successfully gain access to documents and witnesses because the lack of cooperation of that government. In the Sharon case, Time came away victorious but embarrassed and poorer.

Immediate fears from the Westmoreland and Sharon cases was that more foreign and U.S. officials would begin using the court system for political vindication. Regardless of whether the official won their libel case, trial publicity could well serve the political purpose and at the same time led to considerable legal expenses by the press in defending their publication.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s libel litigation exploded with damage awards and legal expenses reaching into the millions of dollars with the Westmoreland case being a key example. However, the record showed few individuals pursuing libel claims against the press actually received awards or any vindication of their reputation. Success in winning a libel suit was slim, and even if damages were awarded, the monies often went toward high legal fees.

The landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan compelled public figures to prove a reporter wrote defamatory statements either in the belief that it was false or with reckless disregard whether it was true or not. Such a standard is tough to achieve. Many considered libel law as it had evolved into the 1990s, a legal disaster, though still the most common legal problem facing journalists. The law rarely satisfactorily protects either the First Amendment rights of the journalists or to vindicate the subject of the statements. In addition, court decisions since the 1960s have been viewed as inconsistent and increasing the complexity of demonstrating proof of harm and malice. The Westmoreland case highlighted instances where millions of dollars were spent in attorney's fees by both sides, and yet never went to jury for a decision.

Proposals to reform libel law included the 1993 proposed Uniform Correction or Clarification of Defamation Act by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Intent of the proposed law was to provide a speedier and less costly remedy for defamatory disputes. However, by 1998 only one state had adopted the law. Critics of the law claimed it could well be unconstitutional on freedom of the press grounds. A publication may be forced to publish a correction or clarification of the original statement and reporters may be forced to reveal confidential sources of information. By the end of the nineties no national standard for libel had been adopted and the advent of Internet libel cases introduced even more chaos into the realm of libel law. As the century closed, expensive libel suits and ineffective means of protecting reputations persisted.

Regarding the Westmoreland and Sharon cases, many believed public figures should not be able to sue for libel in instances involving events in which they were involved. These issues constitute political debates and are not the kind issues to be decided by juries. In Westmoreland's case, he was a high-ranking policy-making official who should be openly subject to public scrutiny.