Record who must prove falsity when a newspaper speaks on a public concern

Key facts

Human involvement

Yellow · Close supervision

How AI is used

From the publication and the pleading, record whether the file treats the defendant as a newspaper, the plaintiff as a private figure, and the speech as a matter of public concern, and list the statements the plaintiff says are false. Do not decide that the plaintiff has proved falsity, and do not treat other true statements as a defence.

What the lawyer must review

The lawyer applies Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). The syllabus states the holding: where a newspaper publishes speech of public concern about a private figure, the private-figure plaintiff cannot recover damages without also showing that the statements at issue are false. The opinion says the common-law presumption that defamatory speech is false cannot stand in that setting, because true speech on matters of public concern would otherwise be deterred. The opinion also says the plaintiff must show fault as well as falsity, discussing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). Gertz held that a private figure cannot recover without some showing that the media defendant was at fault, and that the States may not impose liability without fault. Hepps is not a rule that a defendant wins by proving other true statements about the plaintiff. The lawyer decides whether the speech is of public concern, whether the plaintiff is a private figure, and whether the defendant is a newspaper of the kind the holding describes.

Written for / version

United States versionUS