Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Economopoulous v Pollard
Facts:
A clerk of the D told the D in English that the P had stolen (slander per
se) a handkerchief. The P spoke Greek, so a Greek clerk told the P the
same thing in Greek. No evidence showed that any third person heard
the charge except the floorwalker (considered an agent of the D).
Holding:
To maintain a defamation cause, publication of the defamatory
statement must occur to some one other than the person defamed.
Here the P was the only person who understood the remarks b/c
they were in Greek so its not actionable.
A statement made in front of husband and wife isnt publication b/c
theyre considered one unit.
NY Times Co. v Sullivan
Altered the CL definition of defamation:
o
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Facts:
P alleged that he was defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the NYT.
The ad alleged that officials did many horrible things during the civil
rights movement.
Difference b/w this case and Killian:
Sullivan isnt mentioned in the ad
o Was the utterance really a colloquium about the P?
The P didnt produce sufficient evidence to show that
the statements were really about him.
Holding:
In a libel action brought by a public official, the P must show malice in
addition to all the other elements of defamation in order to recover.
Malice:
o Knowledge that the statement was false
o Reckless disregard for the truth/ falsity of what was said
This is a 1st amendment issue b/c people in a free society should
be given a certain amount of wiggle room in discussing peoples