Victoria Price Street v. National Broadcasting Co.
645 F.2d 1227, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19293, 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1001 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who becomes a public figure in connection with a specific, significant public controversy remains a public figure for the purpose of First Amendment protection in later commentary or reporting about that same controversy, regardless of the passage of time.
Facts:
- In 1931, Victoria Price Street was the prosecutrix and main witness in the widely publicized 'Scottsboro boys' rape trials in Alabama.
- The trials became a major national public controversy concerning racial injustice and the legal system.
- During the trials in the 1930s, Street played a prominent role and gave interviews to the press about the case.
- After the conclusion of the trials, Street lived in obscurity and was out of the public view for approximately forty years.
- NBC later televised a historical drama, 'Judge Horton and the Scottsboro Boys,' which was based on a historical book and the trial record.
- The television drama portrayed Street in a derogatory light as a perjurer and a promiscuous woman who falsely accused the Scottsboro defendants of rape.
- The drama's portrayal of Street was based on the findings of Judge Horton, who had presided over one of the trials and set aside a guilty verdict, finding Street's testimony not credible.
- The movie initially, and incorrectly, stated that Street was deceased.
Procedural Posture:
- Victoria Price Street sued National Broadcasting Company (NBC) in the United States District Court (a court of first instance) for libel and invasion of privacy.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the District Court judge directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, NBC.
- The trial judge found that Street was a private figure at the time of publication but that NBC had not been negligent in its broadcast.
- Street, as the appellant, appealed the directed verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with NBC as the appellee.
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 a person who became a public figure due to their involvement in a famous public controversy decades earlier lose that status by returning to a life of obscurity, thereby allowing them to recover for defamation under a standard lower than actual malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Merritt, J.
No. A person who becomes a public figure in connection with a particular controversy remains a public figure for later commentary on that same controversy. Under the First Amendment, such a figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defamatory falsehood was made with actual malice. The court determined that the Scottsboro trials constituted a significant 'public controversy' under the test from Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Street was a central figure in that controversy; she played a prominent role as the sole prosecutrix, she had access to the media, and she voluntarily gave interviews. This public figure status does not lapse with time for the specific controversy that created it, as the need to protect historical debate is as important as protecting contemporaneous reporting. To hold otherwise would restrain historians and commentators from re-examining past events. Since Street is a public figure for this topic, she must prove NBC acted with 'actual malice'—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. NBC's reliance on Judge Horton’s detailed judicial opinion and a respected historical book does not constitute malice.
Dissenting - Peck, J.
Yes. The passage of time and a return to private life can extinguish a person's public figure status, allowing them to sue for defamation under a negligence standard. The primary justifications for the public figure doctrine—access to media to rebut falsehoods and voluntary assumption of risk—no longer apply to Street, who is now an obscure private citizen with no realistic power to counter a national television broadcast. The majority's holding effectively resurrects the 'newsworthiness' test rejected in Gertz. The need for the high 'actual malice' standard diminishes when the pressures of contemporaneous reporting are absent; historians have time to be careful, making a negligence standard appropriate and constitutional for private figures. A jury could have found NBC negligent, particularly for the second broadcast of the film after Street had notified them of her objections and her status as a living person.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'enduring public figure' doctrine for a limited purpose, clarifying that a person involved in a significant historical controversy does not regain private status for future speech concerning that specific event. It significantly strengthens First Amendment protections for historians, authors, and documentarians, allowing them to re-examine and interpret historical events with less fear of defamation suits. The decision prioritizes robust debate about the past over the privacy interests of individuals who were once, but are no longer, in the public eye. This precedent makes it much more difficult for individuals involved in historical events to succeed in libel claims, as they must meet the high burden of proving 'actual malice' rather than simple negligence.
