York Times rule in Montana

1996Recognizing that, although the statute provided that truth “may be given in evidence,” the court nonetheless determined that this falls short of the New York Times rule which “absolutely prohibits the punishment of truthful criticism.” Weston, 528 S.W.2d at 415 (citing Garrison, 379 U.S. at 78 , 85 S.Ct. at 217-18 ).

1996Recognizing that, although the statute provided that truth “may be given in evidence,” the court nonetheless determined that this falls short of the New York Times rule which “absolutely prohibits the punishment of truthful criticism.” Weston, 528 S.W.2d at 415 (citing Garrison, 379 U.S. at 78 , 85 S.Ct. at 217-18 ).

2025The court accordingly “agree[d] with those jurisdictions that have applied a version of the New York Times standard when considering discipline of attorneys who criticize judges.” Green, 11 P.3d at 1085 .

1996Recognizing that, although the statute provided that truth “may be given in evidence,” the court nonetheless determined that this falls short of the New York Times rule which “absolutely prohibits the punishment of truthful criticism.” Weston, 528 S.W.2d at 415 (citing Garrison, 379 U.S. at 78 , 85 S.Ct. at 217-18 ).

1996The Weston court noted that “under the rule laid down in Garrison, truth is a defense even when the offending publication is not made “with good motives and for justifiable ends. ...’ ” Weston, 528 S.W.2d at 415 .

1986Thus, in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254 , 279- 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-726 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice — with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not — and that such actual malice must be shown with “convincing clarity.” New York Times involved a public official, but the New York Times rule has been applied to public figures as well, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323,

1986Thus, in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254 , 279- 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-726 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice — with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not — and that such actual malice must be shown with “convincing clarity.” New York Times involved a public official, but the New York Times rule has been applied to public figures as well, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323,

1986Thus, in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254 , 279- 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-726 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice — with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not — and that such actual malice must be shown with “convincing clarity.” New York Times involved a public official, but the New York Times rule has been applied to public figures as well, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323,

1986Thus, in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254 , 279- 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 725-726 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment required the plaintiff to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice — with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not — and that such actual malice must be shown with “convincing clarity.” New York Times involved a public official, but the New York Times rule has been applied to public figures as well, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323,

1982The United States Supreme Court did not limit its extension to only media defendants in Gertz, supra. We agree with the holding of the Oregon Supreme Court in Wheeler v. Green (1979), 286 Or.99, 593 P.2d 777 : “There is, however, nothing in Gertz which suggests that the cases applying the New York Times rule to non-media defendants were incorrect or would not be followed in future actions brought by public official or public figures.

1982We conclude that all defendants, not only those associated with the media, continue to be protected by the New York Times rule in cases involving comment upon public officials and public figures.” 593 P.2d at 784 .

1982This holding is consistent with this Court’s ruling in Gallagher v. Johnson (1980), Mont., 611 P.2d 613 , 37 St.Rep. 940 .

1982This holding is consistent with this Court's ruling in Gallagher v. Johnson (1980), Mont., 611 P.2d 613 , 37 St.Rep. 940 .

1978In Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, and Associated Press v. Walker (1967), reported together in 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , reh. den. 389 U.S. 889 , 88 S.Ct. 11 , 19 L.Ed.2d 197 (1967), the court extended the New York Times rule to public figures.

1978In Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, and Associated Press v. Walker (1967), reported together in 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , reh. den. 389 U.S. 889 , 88 S.Ct. 11 , 19 L.Ed.2d 197 (1967), the court extended the New York Times rule to public figures.

1978In Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, and Associated Press v. Walker (1967), reported together in 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , reh. den. 389 U.S. 889 , 88 S.Ct. 11 , 19 L.Ed.2d 197 (1967), the court extended the New York Times rule to public figures.

1978In Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, and Associated Press v. Walker (1967), reported together in 388 U.S. 130 , 87 S.Ct. 1975 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 , reh. den. 389 U.S. 889 , 88 S.Ct. 11 , 19 L.Ed.2d 197 (1967), the court extended the New York Times rule to public figures.