York Times rule in Kansas

1983Were we to accept this reasoning, we would reinstate the doctrine advanced in the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 296 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 ] (1971), which concluded that the New York Times privilege should be extended to falsehoods defamatory of private persons whenever the statements concern matters of general or public interest.

1983Were we to accept this reasoning, we would reinstate the doctrine advanced in the plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 296 , 91 S.Ct. 1811 ] (1971), which concluded that the New York Times privilege should be extended to falsehoods defamatory of private persons whenever the statements concern matters of general or public interest.

1983Justice Rehnquist further discussed public figures in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc., 443 U.S. 157 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 (1979): “In Gertz , we held that an attorney was not a public figure even though he voluntarily associated himself with a case that was certain to receive extensive media exposure. 418 U.S. at 352 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 (1974)].

1983Justice Rehnquist further discussed public figures in Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc., 443 U.S. 157 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 (1979): “In Gertz , we held that an attorney was not a public figure even though he voluntarily associated himself with a case that was certain to receive extensive media exposure. 418 U.S. at 352 [ 41 L.Ed.2d 789 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 (1974)].

1975In 1967 the New York Times standard was extended to voluntary public figures who were not public officials (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 , 18 L. ed. 2d 1094, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , reh. den. 389 U. S. 889 , 19 L. ed. 2d 197, 88 S. Ct. 11 ).

1975In 1967 the New York Times standard was extended to voluntary public figures who were not public officials (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 , 18 L. ed. 2d 1094, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , reh. den. 389 U. S. 889 , 19 L. ed. 2d 197, 88 S. Ct. 11 ).

1979As stated in Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 61 L.Ed.2d 450, 458 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 (1979): *573 "First, we recognized that public figures are less vulnerable in injury from defamatory statements because of their ability to resort to effective `self-help.' They usually enjoy significantly greater access than private individuals to channels of effective communication, which enable them through discussion to counter criticism and expose the falsehood and fallacies of defamatory statements. [Citation omitted.] Second, and more importantly, was a normative consideration that pub

1979As stated in Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 61 L.Ed.2d 450, 458 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 (1979): *573 "First, we recognized that public figures are less vulnerable in injury from defamatory statements because of their ability to resort to effective `self-help.' They usually enjoy significantly greater access than private individuals to channels of effective communication, which enable them through discussion to counter criticism and expose the falsehood and fallacies of defamatory statements. [Citation omitted.] Second, and more importantly, was a normative consideration that pub

1975Ed. 919 , 72 S. Ct. 725 , Note 18.) The New York Times rule was extended to those who are merely “public figures” in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 , 18 L.

1975Also in 1971 the same court decided Time Inc. v. Pape, 401 U. S. 279 , 28 L. ed. 2d 45, 91 S. Ct. 633 , reh. den. 401 U. S. 1015 , 28 L. ed. 2d 552, 91 S. Ct. 1248 , a decision thought by Professor Prosser to extend the New York Times standard to reporting of court proceedings even if the report is inaccurate (Prosser, Torts, 4th ed., 1971, § 118, p. 832, footnote 64a.) — a view not shared by other writers on the subject (see Johnson, “Libel: The New York Times Standard in Reports of Judicial Proceedings”, 25 Sw.

1975Also in 1971 the same court decided Time Inc. v. Pape, 401 U. S. 279 , 28 L. ed. 2d 45, 91 S. Ct. 633 , reh. den. 401 U. S. 1015 , 28 L. ed. 2d 552, 91 S. Ct. 1248 , a decision thought by Professor Prosser to extend the New York Times standard to reporting of court proceedings even if the report is inaccurate (Prosser, Torts, 4th ed., 1971, § 118, p. 832, footnote 64a.) — a view not shared by other writers on the subject (see Johnson, “Libel: The New York Times Standard in Reports of Judicial Proceedings”, 25 Sw.

1975In 1967 the New York Times standard was extended to voluntary public figures who were not public officials (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U. S. 130 , 18 L. ed. 2d 1094, 87 S. Ct. 1975 , reh. den. 389 U. S. 889 , 19 L. ed. 2d 197, 88 S. Ct. 11 ).

1975Also in 1971 the same court decided Time Inc. v. Pape, 401 U. S. 279 , 28 L. ed. 2d 45, 91 S. Ct. 633 , reh. den. 401 U. S. 1015 , 28 L. ed. 2d 552, 91 S. Ct. 1248 , a decision thought by Professor Prosser to extend the New York Times standard to reporting of court proceedings even if the report is inaccurate (Prosser, Torts, 4th ed., 1971, § 118, p. 832, footnote 64a.) — a view not shared by other writers on the subject (see Johnson, “Libel: The New York Times Standard in Reports of Judicial Proceedings”, 25 Sw.

1975Also in 1971 the same court decided Time Inc. v. Pape, 401 U. S. 279 , 28 L. ed. 2d 45, 91 S. Ct. 633 , reh. den. 401 U. S. 1015 , 28 L. ed. 2d 552, 91 S. Ct. 1248 , a decision thought by Professor Prosser to extend the New York Times standard to reporting of court proceedings even if the report is inaccurate (Prosser, Torts, 4th ed., 1971, § 118, p. 832, footnote 64a.) — a view not shared by other writers on the subject (see Johnson, “Libel: The New York Times Standard in Reports of Judicial Proceedings”, 25 Sw.