Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Incorporated v. Daniel Connaughton (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
JoinMajority
| - Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy (en)
|
LawsApplied
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, (en)
|
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
findlaw
| |
fullname
| - Harte-Hanks Communications, Incorporated v. Daniel Connaughton (en)
|
Holding
| - Ignoring obvious sources and reporting with a reckless disregard for the truth are sufficient evidence for actual malice in libel law. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice. (en)
|
Concurrence
| - White (en)
- Kennedy (en)
- Scalia (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
googlescholar
| |
JoinConcurrence
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |