fair comment privilege in New Jersey

1987See also Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62 (1982), relying on the Restatement approach and concluding that the fair-comment privilege has been replaced by the broader protection described in § 566.

1986Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 29 N.J. 357, 382 (1959); and see Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 68, holding that after New York Times and Gertz there is no need to invoke the fair comment privilege to protect expressions of opinions about public figures.

2009Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469, 484 , 486 n. 12, 958 A. 2d 427 (2008) (quoting Leers, supra, 24 N.J. at 253 , 131 A. 2d 781 ).

1982This Court has articulated the following definition of the fair comment privilege: In a word, “fair comment” (a) must be based on facts truly stated, and (b) must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonourable motives on the person whose conduct or work is criticized, save in so far as such imputations are warranted by the facts, and (c) must be the honest expression of the writer’s real opinion; and if the comment complies with these conditions, it is fair comment, however incorrect be the views expressed by the critic, or however exaggerated or even prejudiced be the language of the cri

2009In order "to overcome [the fair-comment privilege, plaintiffs] must establish that the publisher knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity." Dairy Stores, supra, 104 N.J. at 151, 516 A. 2d 220 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 600 (1965)).

2009In order "to overcome [the fair-comment privilege, plaintiffs] must establish that the publisher knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity." Dairy Stores, supra, 104 N.J. at 151, 516 A. 2d 220 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 600 (1965)).

1995Implicit in the determination of what was a matter of legitimate public concern for purposes of accrual of the fair comment privilege was a fairness assessment based on the voluntariness or expectation of exposure and publicity. [Id. at 272, 516 A.2d 1083 .] Both Dairy Stores and Sisler involved business activities that intrinsically implicated important public interests, a matter of public health — the sale of such an essential of life as bottled water — and an industry heavily regulated by the government— banks.

1995Implicit in the determination of what was a matter of legitimate public concern for purposes of accrual of the fair comment privilege was a fairness assessment based on the voluntariness or expectation of exposure and publicity. [ Id. at 272 , 516 A. 2d 1083 .] Both Dairy Stores and Sisler involved business activities that intrinsically implicated important public interests, a matter of *412 public health — the sale of such an essential of life as bottled water — and an industry heavily regulated by the government — banks.

1986Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 73 (fair comment extends to writer of letter to editor of newspaper); Barbetta Agency, Inc. v. Evening News Publishing Co., 135 N.J.Super. 214, 222 (App. Div.1975) (assumed, without deciding, that media and non-media defendants should be treated alike); Hohl v. Mettler, supra, 62 N.J.Super. at 65 (defense applies to members of citizens group that placed advertisement in local newspaper and was source for newspaper article); Mick v. American Dental Ass’n, supra, 49 N.J.Super. at 279-84 (fair comment applies to letter from dental association to

1986Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 73 (fair comment extends to writer of letter to editor of newspaper); Barbetta Agency, Inc. v. Evening News Publishing Co., 135 N.J.Super. 214, 222 (App. Div.1975) (assumed, without deciding, that media and non-media defendants should be treated alike); Hohl v. Mettler, supra, 62 N.J.Super. at 65 (defense applies to members of citizens group that placed advertisement in local newspaper and was source for newspaper article); Mick v. American Dental Ass’n, supra, 49 N.J.Super. at 279-84 (fair comment applies to letter from dental association to

1986Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 29 N.J. 357, 382 (1959); and see Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 68, holding that after New York Times and Gertz there is no need to invoke the fair comment privilege to protect expressions of opinions about public figures.

1986Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 73 (fair comment extends to writer of letter to editor of newspaper); Barbetta Agency, Inc. v. Evening News Publishing Co., 135 N.J.Super. 214, 222 (App. Div.1975) (assumed, without deciding, that media and non-media defendants should be treated alike); Hohl v. Mettler, supra, 62 N.J.Super. at 65 (defense applies to members of citizens group that placed advertisement in local newspaper and was source for newspaper article); Mick v. American Dental Ass’n, supra, 49 N.J.Super. at 279-84 (fair comment applies to letter from dental association to

1986Kotlikoff v. The Community News, supra, 89 N.J. at 73 (fair comment extends to writer of letter to editor of newspaper); Barbetta Agency, Inc. v. Evening News Publishing Co., 135 N.J.