Bustos v. a & E TELEVISION NETWORKS
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14731, 646 F.3d 762, 39 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2049 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defamatory statement is not actionable if it is substantially true, meaning that the substance, gist, or sting of the statement is justified even if minor inaccuracies exist. The test for materiality compares the harm to the plaintiff's reputation caused by the statement with the harm that the literal truth would have caused in the eyes of a reasonable, law-abiding person.
Facts:
- Jerry Lee Bustos was an inmate at a federal supermax facility in Florence, Colorado.
- A prison surveillance camera captured footage of Bustos getting into a fight on the prison yard.
- A&E Television Networks (A&E) obtained this footage and featured it on its television show, 'Gangland: Aryan Brotherhood.'
- The program juxtaposed images of Bustos with narration about the Aryan Brotherhood, its white-supremacist views, and its violent history, implying he was a member.
- While not a formal member, Bustos had previously conspired with the Aryan Brotherhood and other gangs to smuggle heroin into the prison.
- Following a disruption in the smuggling plan, Bustos sent a handwritten apology note to an Aryan Brotherhood leader, addressing him as 'bro' and sending his 'respect.'
- Bustos also has a prior conviction for a gang-related attempted homicide.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Lee Bustos filed a defamation lawsuit against A&E Television Networks in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of A&E.
- The district court ruled that while the statement implying Bustos was a gang member was defamatory, it was substantially true and therefore not actionable as a matter of law.
- Bustos, as the appellant, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defamatory statement that an individual is a member of a prison gang 'substantially true,' and thus not actionable, when the individual has in fact conspired with and aided and abetted that same gang in a criminal enterprise?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch, Circuit Judge.
No. The statement is not actionable because it is substantially true. To succeed in a defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove the falsity of the challenged statement, and this requires showing a material falsehood, not just a minor inaccuracy. A falsehood is material only if it would be likely to cause reasonable people to think 'significantly less favorably' of the plaintiff than they would if they knew the literal truth. The court's analysis compares the 'sting' of the defamatory statement (being a member of the Aryan Brotherhood) with the 'sting' of the truth (conspiring with and aiding the Aryan Brotherhood in a criminal enterprise). From the perspective of a reasonable, law-abiding member of the community, the difference between these two facts is not significant. Bustos's willing participation in the gang's criminal activities makes the gist of A&E's statement true. Furthermore, the show's implication that members must commit murder ('blood in, blood out') does not create a material falsehood in this case, because Bustos in fact has a conviction for a gang-related attempted homicide.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear application of the substantial truth doctrine as a complete defense to defamation. It carefully distinguishes this doctrine from the broader and more controversial 'incremental harm' and 'libel-proof plaintiff' doctrines, favoring a narrower inquiry focused on the specific statement at issue. The analysis solidifies that the standard for reputational harm is that of the general, law-abiding community, not an insular subculture like a prison population. This precedent strengthens the defense for media organizations by affirming that as long as the 'gist' or 'sting' of a report is accurate, minor factual errors will not support a defamation claim.
