Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.
403 U.S. 29 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a news outlet publishes a defamatory falsehood about a private individual's involvement in an event of public or general concern, the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the statement was published with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- In 1963, George Rosenbloom was a distributor of nudist magazines in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.
- As part of a city-wide crackdown on what it deemed obscenity, Philadelphia police under Captain Ferguson initiated enforcement actions.
- On October 1, 1963, Rosenbloom was arrested while delivering magazines to a newsstand whose operator was also being arrested by police.
- Three days later, police obtained a warrant, searched Rosenbloom's home and a warehouse, and seized his inventory of magazines. Rosenbloom then surrendered and was arrested a second time.
- Following this second arrest, Captain Ferguson telephoned respondent's radio station WIP (owned by Metromedia, Inc.) to inform them of the raid.
- WIP broadcast several news reports stating that police had confiscated thousands of 'obscene books' from Rosenbloom's properties, quoting Captain Ferguson that they had 'hit the supply of a main distributor of obscene material.'
- After Rosenbloom filed a separate lawsuit against police officials, WIP aired further reports calling Rosenbloom and his associates 'smut distributors' and 'girlie-book peddlers.'
- Subsequently, a state court acquitted Rosenbloom of the criminal obscenity charges, with the trial judge ruling as a matter of law that the magazines he distributed were not obscene.
Procedural Posture:
- George Rosenbloom filed a libel suit against Metromedia, Inc., owner of radio station WIP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a federal trial court.
- The District Court instructed the jury according to Pennsylvania's libel law, which required a showing of negligence.
- The jury found in favor of Rosenbloom and awarded him $25,000 in general damages and $725,000 in punitive damages.
- On a post-trial motion, the District Court upheld the general damages but reduced the punitive damages to $250,000 through remittitur.
- Metromedia, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times v. Sullivan should have been applied because the broadcasts concerned matters of public interest, and found the evidence insufficient to meet that standard.
- Rosenbloom, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 First Amendment's 'actual malice' standard, established in New York Times v. Sullivan for public officials, apply to a state civil libel action brought by a private individual for a defamatory falsehood published by a media defendant about that individual's involvement in an event of public or general interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the 'actual malice' standard applies. The First Amendment's protection for speech on matters of public concern does not depend on the status of the person defamed. The Court's reasoning is that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is designed to foster uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate on public issues. If a matter is a subject of public or general interest, it does not become less so merely because a private individual is involved. The public's primary interest is in the event itself, not the prior anonymity or notoriety of the participant. To apply a lesser standard, such as negligence or 'reasonable care,' would lead to self-censorship, as publishers would 'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' for fear of large damage awards based on an elusive standard. The Court concludes that extending the New York Times standard to all communications involving matters of public concern provides the necessary 'breathing space' for the First Amendment, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a public official, public figure, or private individual.
Concurring - Justice Black
Yes, the judgment is correct, but the First Amendment provides absolute protection against all libel judgments. He concurs in the judgment but repeats his long-held view that the First Amendment was intended to leave the press completely free from the harassment of libel judgments, even for statements made with knowledge of their falsity. The New York Times standard, in his view, does not go far enough to protect the media.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the judgment is correct on these specific facts. He would not adopt the broad 'public or general concern' test. Instead, he argues the First Amendment gives the media a privilege to report on the official actions of public servants in full detail, absent actual malice. Since the news reports concerned Rosenbloom's arrest by the police—an official action—the broadcasts were privileged. This narrower approach avoids displacing large areas of state libel law that may not pose a significant hazard to the press.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan
No, the 'public or general concern' test is unworkable and leads to unpredictable, ad hoc judicial balancing. The proper approach for private individuals is to allow states to set the standard of care, so long as they do not impose liability without fault (i.e., at least negligence is required). However, to protect First Amendment values, recovery should be limited to actual, measurable damages. Punitive damages should only be permitted upon a showing of 'actual malice,' and even then, the amount must bear a reasonable and purposeful relationship to the actual harm done.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
No, the plurality's 'public or general concern' standard is flawed because it is vague and threatens both press freedom and private reputations. The core problem of defamation law is the threat of huge, unpredictable jury awards for punitive and presumed damages, which causes self-censorship. The appropriate constitutional resolution is to restrict all damages in libel cases brought by private individuals to compensation for proved, actual injuries. With damages so limited, states would be free to articulate their own standards of fault, provided they do not impose strict liability.
Analysis:
This plurality opinion represents the furthest expansion of the New York Times 'actual malice' standard, shifting the constitutional analysis from the status of the plaintiff to the subject matter of the publication. By establishing the 'public or general concern' test, the Court created a precedent that was difficult for lower courts to apply consistently, as the line between public and private matters is inherently vague. This decision created significant uncertainty for both plaintiffs and media defendants. The test proved to be short-lived, as the Supreme Court explicitly rejected it just three years later in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), which returned to a plaintiff-status-based framework and established different rules for public and private figure plaintiffs.
Unlock the full brief for Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.