York Times standard in New Jersey

1984“The universally recognized implication of the Court’s curious use of the double negative” in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349 , 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3011 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789, 810 (1974) — “the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth” — is that "punitive damages are permitted when such ‘actual malice’ is shown.” Embrey v. Holly, 293 Md. 128 , 442 A 2d 966, 972 n. 14 (1982); see also Davis v. *478 Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 737 (D.C.Cir.1975) ("[G]ertz appears

1983See, e.g., Avins v. White, 627 F. 2d 637, 649 (3rd Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 398 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 244 (1980); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 734 (D.C.

1987Super. 214, 222 (App.Div. 1975), suggesting as well that application of the New York Times rule depends on the status of the person defamed rather than the alleged defamer. [8] As explained by Comment c on § 580B at 223, In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974) 418 U.S. 323 [ 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789 ], the Supreme Court specifically held that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not permit the imposition of "liability without fault" on "a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual." Aside from this restriction, the Court said, the States ma

1987Super. 214, 222 (App.Div. 1975), suggesting as well that application of the New York Times rule depends on the status of the person defamed rather than the alleged defamer. [8] As explained by Comment c on § 580B at 223, In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974) 418 U.S. 323 [ 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 789 ], the Supreme Court specifically held that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not permit the imposition of "liability without fault" on "a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual." Aside from this restriction, the Court said, the States ma

1987The New York Times standard requires that actual malice must be proven with "convincing clarity." See also Lawrence v. Bauer, supra, 89 N.J. at 466 .

1987Ltd., supra, 89 N.J. at 462 .

1984See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 US. 64, 78, 85 S.Ct. 209, 217 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125, 135 (1964) (criminal libel of public figure cannot be based on finding of “ill will or enmity or a wanton desire to injure”).

1965Pending this appeal the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra , held that the federal "Constitution limits state power, in a civil action brought by a public official for criticism of his official conduct, to an award of damages for a false statement `made with "actual malice" — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' 376 U.S., at pp. 279-280 [ 84 S.Ct., at p. 726 ]" (as paraphrased by the writer of the opinion, Mr. Justice Brennan, in his opinion in the more recent case of Garrison v. Louisiana, 85 S.

1992See Vassallo v. Bell, 221 N.J.

1988This is not merely a `blind application' of the New York Times standard, see Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 390 [ 87 S.Ct. 534, 543 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 456 ] (1967), it reflects our considered judgment that such a standard is necessary to give adequate `breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. [ 485 U.S. at ___ , 108 S.Ct. at 882 , 99 L.Ed. 2d at 52-53 .] The Court stresses the importance of full First Amendment protection for political cartoons and satire, and the danger of trying to qualify the nature of the particular joke.

1988This is not merely a `blind application' of the New York Times standard, see Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 390 [ 87 S.Ct. 534, 543 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 456 ] (1967), it reflects our considered judgment that such a standard is necessary to give adequate `breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. [ 485 U.S. at ___ , 108 S.Ct. at 882 , 99 L.Ed. 2d at 52-53 .] The Court stresses the importance of full First Amendment protection for political cartoons and satire, and the danger of trying to qualify the nature of the particular joke.

1987Eadie v. Pole, 91 N.J.

1987We simply note that Sisler , while apparently not rejecting a negligence standard in toto, has nevertheless, in effect, opted to apply the New York Times rule of § 580A at least to "a private person with sufficient experience, understanding and knowledge [who] enters into a personal transaction or conducts his personal affairs in a manner that one in his position would reasonably expect implicates a legitimate public interest with an attendant risk of publicity...." Sisler, supra, 104 N.J. at 279.

1987We simply note that Sisler , while apparently not rejecting a negligence standard in toto, has nevertheless, in effect, opted to apply the New York Times rule of § 580A at least to "a private person with sufficient experience, understanding and knowledge [who] enters into a personal transaction or conducts his personal affairs in a manner that one in his position would reasonably expect implicates a legitimate public interest with an attendant risk of publicity...." Sisler, supra, 104 N.J. at 279.

1984For affirmance — None. 1 ln Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 65 , 86 S.Ct. 657, 664 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582, 591 (1966), the Court "adopted by analogy" the New York Times standard to judge the speech in the context of labor relations "to effectuate the statutory design with respect to preemption." 2 The jury should be instructed to use this standard as well to assess punitive damages.

1984For affirmance — None. 1 ln Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 65 , 86 S.Ct. 657, 664 , 15 L.Ed.2d 582, 591 (1966), the Court "adopted by analogy" the New York Times standard to judge the speech in the context of labor relations "to effectuate the statutory design with respect to preemption." 2 The jury should be instructed to use this standard as well to assess punitive damages.

1984Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 , 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1326 , 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 267 (1968), explained the relationship of the New York Times standard to good faith: “The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true.

1984Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 , 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1326 , 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 267 (1968), explained the relationship of the New York Times standard to good faith: “The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot, however, automatically insure a favorable verdict by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true.

1983See Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F. 2d 264, 272 (3rd Cir.1980); Diversified Management, Inc. v. The Denver Post, 653 P. 2d 1103 (Colo. 1982).

1983See, e.g., Avins v. White, 627 F. 2d 637, 649 (3rd Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 398 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 244 (1980); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 734 (D.C.

1983See, e.g., Avins v. White, 627 F. 2d 637, 649 (3rd Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 398 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 244 (1980); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 734 (D.C.

1983See, e.g., Avins v. White, 627 F. 2d 637, 649 (3rd Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 398 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 244 (1980); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 734 (D.C.

1983See, e.g., Avins v. White, 627 F. 2d 637, 649 (3rd Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 982 , 101 S.Ct. 398 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 244 (1980); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F. 2d 731, 734 (D.C.

1983Hutchinson v. Proxmire, supra. 443 U.S. at 133, n. 16, 99 S.Ct. at 2687, n. 16.

1982Id. at 169, 99 S.Ct. at 1645 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 129 .

1982Id. at 169, 99 S.Ct. at 1645 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 129 .

1982See Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 290 , 91 S.Ct. 633, 639 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 45, 53 (1971); Ryan v. Brooks, supra, 634 F. 2d at 733 .

1982See Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279, 290 , 91 S.Ct. 633, 639 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 45, 53 (1971); Ryan v. Brooks, supra, 634 F. 2d at 733 .