ACC717 Law, Media Communication: Importance of Legal Case Studies

This essay provides a detailed analysis and comparison of two significant case studies in media communication: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. The analysis focuses on the importance of legal considerations in professional media practice, particularly concerning defamation laws and freedom of speech. The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case established that public officials must prove actual malice in defamation claims, safeguarding free reporting. The Theophanous case highlights the constitutional freedom of political communication in Australia. Both cases underscore the need for media organizations to understand and navigate complex legal landscapes to protect both freedom of expression and individual reputations. The essay concludes by emphasizing the ethical and legal challenges faced by media professionals in balancing public interest with legal constraints.

Law media communication

Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................................2
Analysis and comparison of the case studies:.............................................................................................2
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................................7
References:..................................................................................................................................................7

Introduction:
There are several defamation cases present of high profile media companies which have
completely damaged the reputation of the organizations. The main reason behind it is the
business people, powerful politicians and celebrities often use the defamation laws to seek
compensatory damages to the media organizations. The defamation laws, copyright laws, etc
have emerged in communication mediums to safeguard freedom of communication as well as to
protect the reputation of the media houses (Fireside, 1999). Though the defamation laws were
initially developed as civil acts soon criminal offense statutes were given to it. Sometimes, it
becomes difficult for the media practitioners to find out the deeper ethical principles in many of
the defamation laws which occur today. The main aim of the paper is to analyze the importance
of the different types of legal considerations in professional practice in the media industry. There
are different case examples present that can help to know the importance of the legal
considerations in professional practice in media organizations. Two popular cases chosen for this
paper are New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and Theophanous v Herald &
Weekly Times Ltd.
Analysis and comparison of the case studies:
The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) is referred as a landmark decision in
the Supreme Court of US which mainly ruled that the protections in the freedom of speech in the
constitution of US can restrict the ability of the public officials of America to sue for the cases of
defamation. On a specific note, it states that without any kind of proof no public officials can sue
anyone through the defamation case and also needs to prove the fact that any such statement
based on which the defamation has been considered should be brought to the notice of the judge
through proper evidence to identify whether the statement was false or whether it was
disregarded. The case mainly started during the early 1960s when an advertisement was
displayed in The New York Times titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", by the supporters of
Martin Luther King Jr. The article criticized police for mistreating the civil rights of the
protestors in Montgomery in Alabama (Lewis, 2011). There were several factual inaccuracies
present in the article. The most important one was the number of occurrences of arrests of King
at the time of the protest and the songs which were sung by the protestors etc. After the article

was published, the police commissioner of Montgomery named LB Sullivan sued The New York
Times based on defamation in a local county court of US. The judge ruled that there were several
inaccuracies present in the article and the jury present in the court also provided a verdict
supporting Sullivan and the jury also awarded damages of $500,000 to Sullivan. After that The
New York Times put an appeal in the Supreme Court of Alabama and they affirmed it. Soon,
they appealed to US Supreme Court and they ordered certiorari. During March 1964, the Court
made a unanimous decision which holds the fact that the verdict had violated First Amendment
and the decision also defended the act of free reporting in the civil rights campaign in the US.
This is referred to as one of the most important decisions which supported the freedom of the
press (Lithwick, 2007). Libel actions worth $300 million were pending from the southern states
before the decision was taken, which were against the media organizations. The decision of the
of Supreme Court and the malice standard adopted also saves several defendants from the
defamation claims that might arise and it also led to the frustration of the government officials to
use the claims for suppressing the political criticism. After the issuance of the decision during
1964, the Supreme Court also extended their legal standards for the cases of defamation to all of
the public figures started in 1967 in case of the Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (Schmidt, 2014).
Due to the increased number of evidence and proofs on plaintiff required by the decisions and
the difficulties in proving the real knowledge of the defendants, it has also become highly
difficult for the public service persons to win against the defamation lawsuits in the country.
The case is important in the context of the legal considerations in the professional practice in
media organizations because it held that the media publications such as newspaper cannot be
considered as liable for the public officials unless they can meet the standards of malice for the
publications of any kind of false statements which are made on the newspapers (Watson, 2002).
The decision of the court in the case was unanimous, 9-0. The rules present in the law of
Alabama Court was considered as unconstitutional for the failure of it for safeguarding the
freedom of the media for publishing any statement as per the requirements of the amendment in
the constitution (Lithwick, 2007). The decision also stated that even though the proper process of
safeguarding it, the evidence present in the case was not sufficient for supporting the judgment
for the commissioner of Police. The court mainly ruled that the projects of the first amendment
for the publications of all types of statements and apart from the cases when the statements can
be done with the actual malice. The judgment of the case helped the newspapers to get more

freedom for reporting on the widespread chaos as well as police abusing at the time of the Civil
Rights Movement.
The case is also important because the common law malice emerged from it and it also gave a
constitutional significance. The court also mentioned the fact that the public officials who want
to sue any individual or company based on the misstatement or malice should be able to prove
the fact and it should also bring the question that it was conducted through appropriate malice.
As per the opinion of the court, Malice is an abstract and elusive concept as defined by the court
and it is also quite difficult to prove (Williams, 2019). The requirement based on which malice
can be proved is that it is evanescent protection for the rights to critically discuss the different
types of public affairs which cannot measure the extent to safeguard the persons present in the
First Amendment. The term “malice” has emerged from the libel law which existed earlier and it
is not an entirely new concept. In different jurisdictions, which also include Alabama, the proof
of the actual malice was mainly needed for the different types of punitive damages or the
increased level of penalties (Rolph, 2016). As the malicious intent of the writers are difficult to
prove, the proof of the writer to publish false information is usually considered as proof of
malice and it is also considered in the assumption that a particular person who does not want to
publish something without any intent but published as a mistake is also considered as false. In
another case of Hoeppner v. Dunkirk Printing Co., 254 N.Y. 95 (1930), the court stated that the
plaintiff alleged the criticism of him and his works are not honest and fair and it was entirely
published through actual malice (Lithwick, 2007). If the person can establish the allegation then
he can make a cause of action. In another line, Justice Brennan also stated that the actual malice
standard can sometimes protect some forms of inaccurate speech but in many instances, some
kind of erroneous statements might be considered as inevitable during any free debate and it is
also needed to have some protection in case the freedoms of expression might have something
which can provide breathing space for their survival. The rule of defamation cases has to be
proven untruth instead of the fact the defendant should prove the statement as truth and it is the
departure of the previous common law (Todd, 2016). In the UK, the law was not accepted during
the judgment of the Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd case and the law was
also not taken into grant during the Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. But, the judgment
was referred to in Theophanous vs. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. Although the case was a
bit different from this one but the judgment which was applied in this case was also same. The

case is also a landmark case of the High Court in Australia. The matter of the case was related to
the implied freedom of the political communication which was inferred by the High Court and it
also rests in the Australia Constitution. Andrew Theophanous was a member of Australian Labor
Party also a Member of Australian House of Representatives since the year 1980. In the year
1992, he was also appointed as the chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on
Migration (Johnson, 2016). In an article posted in the newspaper titled Herald and Weekly Times
by Bruce Ruxton, it stated that Theophanous is biased towards the Greeks as the migrants.
Theophanous also sued the newspaper based on defamation. The judgment also stated that the
newspapers and media have a kind of constitutional freedom for publishing the material
discussion of the government as well as the political matters and how the MPs of Australia
conduct their duties.
The case is also important in the context of the importance of the different types of legal
considerations in the professional practice in the media industry because in the case the
newspaper stated that they have the absolute right for publishing the material as it was an
important part of the political discussions (Williams, 2019). In the case, the defendants also
heavily relied on the judgment of High Court in which the major number of courts also
recognized the constitutional implication of the freedom of the political discussions which have
been originated from the rules of the democracy of the representatives which also formed a
significant part of the constitution.
An important question which was raised by the two cases was whether the constitutional
implication of the freedom of the political discussions can be characterized as the right of a
person or whether it is entirely a limitation of the power of legislation. An important question in
this regard is how the implication can hurt the common law (Williams, 2019). In this case, on the
question of whether the constitutional implications might have any kind of impact on the
common law, the authors stated that the constitution is present at variance through a kind of
doctrine of the common law or not and in the earlier case discussed, Brennan stated that although
the constitution has prevailed the common law, and it also deals with the power and structure of
the government and not on the rights as well as the liabilities of the individuals (Garcia, 2016).
On the same note, he also considered the fact that there was no conflict present between the

common law and constitution which also regulate the rights of the individuals for suing another
individual for the defamation.
The case is also particularly important to understand the importance of the different types of
legal considerations in the professional practice because the judgment made by Mason CJ,
Toohey and Gaudron JJ in the case was based on the review of the implication of the
communication freedom which was recognized by the Australian High Court in the National
Television Channel of Australia as well as in the National News. They also noted the fact that the
implication is not only meant to extend to the freedom of speech on a general discourse. On the
other hand, the political discussions are also not limited to the different matters which are related
to the Government of Commonwealth but it is also applicable to the political information and the
ideas as well as debates in three tiers of the government. Based on the concept of the political
discussion, the performance, capacity of the MPs and the fitness of the member for the
parliament to hold the office as well as the responsibilities to take as the chairperson of the
parliamentary committee is based on the regulations of Migration (Garcia, 2016). For attracting
the protection of the implication of the constitution, the discussion can also relate to the matters
of the political relevance such as the policies of the office of the political figures. Their absolute
honors also provided an example of the actors seeking some kind of election in the parliament.
They also noted the fact that there are differences present between the commercial speech in
which the speech is entirely simple for selling the goods as well as the services and also
enhancement of the profit-making activities and speech on it is a matter of the public concern.
Although there is no need to decide the point it has also been indicated that the view of the
commercial speech cannot be protected by the constitutional freedom as implied by the political
discussion (Schmidt, 2014). The constitutional implication of the freedom of speech in case of
any political discussion cannot be confined in the Commonwealth of Australia. In the case, the
board which provided the judgment also stated the fact that the freedom of any type of politically
included discussion might be derived from the constitution of Australia and the judgment of the
case does not refrain the rights of the people but also aimed at bringing some kind of the legal
actions which are meant for the defamation cases. They also protect the freedom of speech of the
political figures and they also do not single out the members of the parliament for restricting
their rights in case they want to sue someone based on defamation. The MPs can sue anyone

successfully for defamatory comments that are about their personal lives or other types of
matters which are not related to work as a politician.
Conclusion:
From the paper, it can be concluded that the two cases i.e. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376
U.S. 254 (1964) and Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd are similar to each other. The
judgment given to the two cases are also the same but the contexts of the two cases are different.
The first case helped us to learn the concept of malice and the second one also helped to
understand the concept of the freedom of political discussions and the implications of the legal
rules and regulations in the concepts. It also helped to understand the implications of laws in case
of presentation and publishing of the newspaper articles. The paper concluded that the
importance of the different types of legal considerations is present in the professional practice in
the media industry to safeguard the rights of the media as well as the rights of the public in
different sphere of the society.

References:
Fireside, H. (1999). New York Times V. Sullivan: Affirming Freedom of the Press. Berkeley
Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc.
Lewis, A. (2011). Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 12.
Lithwick, D. (2007). "Target Practice: Justice Scalia sets his sights on New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan". Slate.
Schmidt, C. (2014). "New York Times v. Sullivan and the Legal Attack on the Civil Rights
Movement" (PDF). Alabama Law Review. 66: 293–335
Watson, J. (2002). "Times v. Sullivan: Landmark or Land Mine on the Road to Ethical
Journalism?". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 17 (1): 3–19.
Williams, P. (2019). "Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes landmark Supreme Court press freedom
ruling". NBC News.
Rolph, D. (2016). Reputation, celebrity and defamation law. Routledge.
Kenyon, A. T. (2019). Libel, Slander, and Defamation. The International Encyclopedia of
Journalism Studies, 1-8.
Todd, J. (2016). Satire in Defamation Law: Toward a Critical Understanding. Rev. Litig., 35, 45.
Johnson, D. (2016). Trending@ RWU Law: Deborah Johnson's Post: Now" Defamation" Matters
More Than Ever 11-16-2016.
Garcia, J. M. A. (2016). International Infliction of Emotional Distress Torts as the Best Legal
Option for Victims: When Cyberbullying Conduct Falls through the Cracks of the US Criminal
Law System. Rev. Jur. UPR, 85, 127.

Cases:
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd[1993] AC 534
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] 2 SCR 1130
Grant v. Torstar Corp. [2009] 2009 SCC 61