Powell v. Monitor Publishing Co.
107 N.H. 83, 217 A.2d 193, 1966 N.H. LEXIS 126 (1966)
Rule of Law:
The 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requiring proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, does not apply to a libel action brought by a former public official unless that individual continues to hold a position of substantial governmental responsibility or has thrust himself into the 'vortex' of a pressing public concern.
Facts:
- An editorial titled 'Why the Wheeling and Dealing?' was published, discussing three State Senators who allegedly agreed to vote together on a sweepstakes bill after previously opposing it.
- The editorial suggested a 'deal' was made and implied that former Governor Powell was involved in an attempt to embarrass the Republican party, which had unceremoniously removed him from office in a previous primary.
- Former Governor Powell had publicly opposed sweepstakes in the past but was also characterized in the editorial as 'vindictive.'
- The editorial reported that 'the word is out that Powell will seek the Republican nomination again in 1964.'
- The editorial expressed disapproval of the sweepstakes bill and the 'wheeling and dealing' it had provoked.
- The plaintiff, former Governor Powell, was widely known throughout the United States, had served as Governor of New Hampshire and Chairman of the United States Governors’ Conference, and had resumed the general practice of law.
- The plaintiff's declaration alleged the editorial accused him of being involved in an improper deal, using improper influence on State Senators to violate their oaths, and engaging in illegal means for personal gain or to embarrass the Republican Party.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (Powell) filed a libel action against the defendant (newspaper publisher) in a trial court.
- The plaintiff's declaration alleged the defendant's editorial contained defamatory statements about him.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending the editorial was not capable of defamatory meaning and that the plaintiff, as a public figure, failed to allege actual malice as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Defendant (appellant) filed an exception to the denial of the motion to dismiss, bringing the case before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'actual malice' standard for libel, as established by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, apply to a former governor who is not currently in public office but is alleged to be contemplating a return to politics, thereby requiring him to plead and prove actual malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Duncan, J.
No, the 'actual malice' standard does not apply to the plaintiff in this case, a former governor, because he does not fall within the categories to which the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan rule had been extended at the time. The editorial is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, suggesting corrupt conduct injurious to public welfare for purposes of political retaliation and personal gain. The court acknowledges that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan requires public officials to prove 'actual malice' (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth). While later cases like Garrison v. Louisiana distinguished 'actual malice' from common law malice (hatred/ill will), and some cases suggested the rule might extend to candidates or 'public figures,' the court found that Powell, though a prominent former official, was not a 'public official' under the Times rule as interpreted at the time. Citing Rosenblatt v. Baer, the court noted the rule extends 'at the very least to…government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.' The court specifically stated there was 'no reason to suppose that the case before us falls within' the category of one who 'has thrust himself into the vortex of the discussion of a question of pressing public concern' (a concept later clarified for 'public figures'). Thus, the court held that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan rule does not embrace this case, and the plaintiff's general allegations of malice were sufficient to maintain the action.
Analysis:
This case is significant for illustrating the early, cautious interpretation and application of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 'actual malice' standard. It highlights the judiciary's initial reluctance to broadly expand the definition of 'public official' or 'public figure' beyond those currently holding substantial governmental responsibility. The decision underscores the ongoing struggle courts faced in balancing free press rights with an individual's right to reputation, laying groundwork for future clarifications and expansions of the 'public figure' doctrine.
