Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc.

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of newsworthy but defamatory accusations made by a responsible, prominent organization against a public figure. This protection, known as the neutral reportage privilege, applies regardless of the reporter's private views regarding the validity of the charges.

Facts:

• A heated public controversy existed over the use of the pesticide DDT, with the National Audubon Society opposing its use and several scientists, including J. Gordon Edwards, Thomas H. Jukes, and Robert H. White-Stevens, supporting it.
• The pro-DDT scientists frequently cited the Audubon Society's annual Christmas Bird Count data to support their claim that bird populations were stable or increasing despite pesticide use.
• In the foreword to the April 1972 issue of the Audubon publication American Birds, editor Robert S. Arbib, Jr. wrote that any "scientist" who claimed bird populations were thriving despite pesticide use was a person "who is being paid to lie."
• John Devlin, a New York Times reporter, contacted Arbib to find out which scientists the foreword was referring to.
• Arbib consulted with Audubon Society Vice-President Roland Clement, who provided a list of scientists, including Edwards, Jukes, and White-Stevens, whom he considered to be misinterpreting the bird count data.
• Arbib then gave this list of names to Devlin, identifying them as the subjects of the 'paid to lie' accusation.
• Devlin contacted several of the named scientists, who vehemently denied the charges and referred to them as 'almost libelous.'
• On August 14, 1972, The New York Times published Devlin's article, which reported that the Audubon Society had accused the named scientists of being 'paid liars' and included the scientists' denials.

Procedural Posture:

• J. Gordon Edwards, Thomas H. Jukes, and Robert H. White-Stevens (plaintiffs) sued The New York Times Company, the National Audubon Society, and two of its employees (defendants) for libel in a federal district court (court of first instance).
• The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial judge.
• The trial judge ruled that the plaintiffs were 'public figures' and that the publications were defamatory per se.
• Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs against The New York Times Company and Roland Clement, but found defendant Robert Arbib not liable.
• The jury awarded compensatory damages totaling $61,000 to the plaintiffs.
• The New York Times Company and Clement (as defendants) moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.), which the trial judge denied.
• The New York Times Company and Clement (as appellants) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.