Brown v Kelly Broadcasting Co.docx
- 文档编号:26306630
- 上传时间:2023-06-17
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:46
- 大小:55.81KB
Brown v Kelly Broadcasting Co.docx
《Brown v Kelly Broadcasting Co.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Brown v Kelly Broadcasting Co.docx(46页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
BrownvKellyBroadcastingCo
Brownv.KellyBroadcastingCo.(1989)
48Cal.3d711[257Cal.Rptr.708,771P.2d406]
[No.S005126.SupremeCourtofCalifornia.April27,1989.]
SHIRLEYBROWN,PlaintiffandAppellant,v.KELLYBROADCASTINGCOMPANYetal.,DefendantsandRespondents
(OpinionbyEagleson,J.,expressingtheunanimousviewofthecourt.)
COUNSEL
BrentonA.BleierandKittN.BermanforPlaintiffandAppellant.
CharlesO.Morgan,Jr.,andPaulKlevenasAmiciCuriaeonbehalfofPlaintiffandAppellant.
L.ThomasWagner,AnthonyD.Lauria,SaraA.ClarkandWeintraub,Genshlea,Hardy,Erich&BrownforDefendantsandRespondents.
Gibson,Dunn&Crutcher,RobertS.Warren,RexS.Heinke,KelliL.Sager,GaryB.Pruitt,WilliamA.Niese,GlenA.Smith,HaroldW.Fuson,Jr.,DonaldL.Zachary,Kaye,Scholer,Fierman,Hays&Handler,PierceO'Donnell,CruzReynoso,ClaraA.ZaziPope,Donovan,Leisure,Newton&Irvine,StephenG.Contopulos,Pillsbury,Madison&Sutro,JeromeC.Dougherty,BernardZimmerman,CelestePhillips,Cooper,White&Cooper,NeilL.Shapiro,KarlOlson,RobertD.Sack,HowardB.Soloway,Rogers&Wells,RichardN.Winfield,DianaBoenigCavanaugh,ThomasP.Newell,CornellChulay,GeorgeFreeman,AliceNeffLucan,JeanE.Zoeller,Sabin,Bermant&Gould,RalphP.Huber,JerryBirenz,MargaretC.Crosby,AlanL.Schlosser,EdwardM.Chen,MatthewA.Coles,Carol[48Cal.3d719]Sobel,BrianS.HaughtonandEllman,Burke&CassidyasAmiciCuriaeonbehalfofDefendantsandRespondents.
OPINION
EAGLESON,J.
[1a]ThesoleissueinthiscaseiswhetherCivilCodesection47,subdivision3,affordsabroadprivilege,sometimesreferredtoasa"public-interestprivilege,"tothenewscommunicationsindustry(newsmedia)tomakefalsestatementsregardingaprivateindividual.fn.1
Section47(3)providesaprivilegetocommunicationsmadewithoutmaliceonoccasionsinwhichthespeakerandtherecipientofthecommunicationshareacommoninterest.Defendants(atelevisionstationanditsreporter)andseveralamicicuriaearguethatwhenthenewsmediapublishandbroadcastmattersofpublicinteresttheyhaveacommoninterestwiththeiraudiencesandthatthepublicationsandbroadcastsshouldbeprivilegedundersection47(3).Underthatprivilege,theplaintiffinadefamationactionwouldberequiredtoprovemalicebythenewsmediadefendanttorecovercompensatorydamages.
Aswewillexplain,thereisnosuchprivilegeforthenewsmediaundersection47(3).Weholdthatapublicationorbroadcastbyamemberofthenewsmediatothegeneralpublicregardingaprivatepersonisnotprivilegedundersection47(3)regardlessofwhetherthecommunicationpertainstoamatterofpublicinterest.Thus,aprivate-personplaintiffisnotrequiredbysection47(3)toprovemalicetorecovercompensatorydamages.
Facts
DefendantKellyBroadcastingCompany(Kelly)ownsandoperatesKCRA-TV,atelevisionstationbroadcastingonChannel3inSacramento.DefendantBradWillis(Willis)wasemployedbyKellyasareporterandappearedonChannel3programs.WillisnarratedtwostoriesinMay1984concerningplaintiffon"Call3forAction"(Call3),aconsumeraffairssegmentofKCRA'sdailynewsshow.ThestorieswereabouttwohomeownerswhohadreceivedhomeimprovementloansmadebythefederalgovernmentandadministeredbytheSacramentoHousingandRedevelopmentAgency(SHRA).Oneofthehomeowners,Lawson,hadenteredintoahomeimprovementcontractwithplaintiffBrown,alicensedcontractor.[48Cal.3d720]
Inthefirstbroadcast,WillisclaimedthatLawsonwasthevictimofafailureoftheSHRAtocorrectmistakesmadebyplaintiffinremodelingLawson'shome.WillisallegedthatLawsonhadsufferedthrough"aseriesofwarpeddoors,andisstillleftwithpeelingpaint,crackingplaster,blisteredwallpaper,shoddywork,insideandout."Thestoryincludedpicturesofvariousproblemsincludingbubblingandpeelingwallcovering,peelingpaint,crackedplaster,andfaultydoors.WillisassertedthatCall3hadattemptedtocallplaintifftodiscusstheremodelingproblemsbutthatshehadnotreturnedthecalls.Healsosaidthatplaintiffhadreturned$225toLawsonandhadbeenreleasedbySHRAfromfurtherresponsibilityfortheremodeling.
Inthesecondbroadcast,anothercontractorwhohadbeencriticizedinthefirststorydefendedhisremodelingwork.Willisclaimedinthesecondbroadcastthatplaintiffhadbeengiventhesameopportunitytodefendherselfbuthadrefusedtodoso.
AfterservingawrittendemandforaretractiononKelly,whichitrejected,plaintifffiledsuitagainstKellyandWillisallegingslanderperse,negligence,andmalice.Defendantsrespondedwithamotionforsummaryjudgment.Inopposition,plaintiffsubmittedadeclarationstatingthatKCRAhadnotattemptedtocontacther,thattheallegationsofsubstandardworkwerefalse,thatmuchofitwasdonebyothercontractors,andthattheContractor'sStateLicenseBoardhadtoldKCRAbeforethebroadcaststhattheboardwouldnotinvestigateLawson'scomplaintsagainstplaintiffbecausetherewasnofactualsupportforthem.
Thetrialcourtsustaineddefendants'evidentiaryobjectionstoportionsofplaintiff'soppositionandgranteddefendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatthebroadcastswereconditionallyprivilegedundersection47(3)andthatplaintiffhadfailedtoraiseatriableissueofmaterialfactastowhethertheprivilegewasovercomebydefendants'malice.
TheCourtofAppealreversedthejudgment.Thecourtagreedwiththetrialcourtthatsection47(3)affordedaconditionalprivilegetothebroadcasts,thusrequiringplaintifftoprovemalice,butfoundsufficientevidencetoraiseatriableissueofmaterialfactastowhetherdefendantshadactedwithmalice.
WeaffirmtheCourtofAppeal'sjudgment,butwedosonotbecausethereisatriableissueastomalicebutbecausethebroadcastsarenotsubjecttoaprivilegeundersection47(3).[48Cal.3d721]
Discussion
Thebroadpublic-interestprivilegeclaimedundersection47(3)isnotconstitutionallymandatedorappropriate.
[2a]Inrecentyears,thecommonandstatutorylawofdefamationhasbeensupplantedinmanyrespectsbydecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtconstruingthefederalConstitution.Thus,althoughthequestionbeforeuscanbeansweredbystatutoryconstruction,itisbestunderstoodinlightofthehighcourt'sdecisions.Defendantsdonotcontendthosedecisionsmandateaprivilegeundersection47(3)butarguethattheyprovidepolicysupportforastatutorypublic-interestprivilegeforthenewsmediaundersection47(3).Wedisagree.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasconstruedthefederalConstitutionasimposingcertainlimitationsonplaintiffsseekingtorecoverfordefamation.Thehighcourt,however,hasexpresslyrejectedtheprivilegesoughtbydefendantsinthiscase.
Forapproximately175yearsaftertheFirstAmendmenttothefederalConstitutionwasratified,libelousstatementswereaffordednoconstitutionalprotection.fn.2Thelawofdefamationwasalmostexclusivelythebusinessofstatecourtsandlegislatures.(Eldredge,TheLawofDefamation(1978)§50,pp.252-254(hereafterEldredge).)Thecourtdidnotsquarelyholduntil1931thattheFirstAmendmentappliestothestatesbyreasonoftheFourteenthAmendment.(Strombergv.California(1931)283U.S.359,368-369[75L.Ed.1117,1122-1123,51S.Ct.532,73A.L.R.1484].)Asrecentlyas1957,thecourtreiteratedthat,"[T]heunconditionalphrasingoftheFirstAmendmentwasnotintendedtoprotecteveryutterance.ThisphrasingdidnotpreventthisCourtfromconcludingthatlibelousutterancesarenotwithintheareaofconstitutionallyprotectedspeech."(Rothv.UnitedStates(1957)354U.S.476,483[1L.Ed.2d1498,1506,77S.Ct.1304],citingBeauharnaisv.Illinois(1952)343U.S.250,266[96L.Ed.919,932,72S.Ct.725].)
Onlysevenyearslater,however,thecourtfoundforthefirsttimethatlibelisprotectedbythefederalConstitutionundercertaincircumstances.[3],[4]InNewYorkTimesv.Sullivan(1964)376U.S.254[11L.Ed.2d686,84S.Ct.710,95A.L.R.2d1412],thecourtheldthat"Theconstitutionalguarantees[offreedomofspeechandthepress]require...afederalrulethatprohibitsapublicofficialfromrecoveringdamagesforadefamatoryfalsehoodrelatingtohisofficialconductunlessheprovesthat[48Cal.3d722]thestatementwasmadewith'actualmalice'--thatis,withknowledgethatitwasfalseorwithrecklessdisregardofwhetheritwasfalseornot."(Id.,atpp.279-280[11L.Ed.2datp.706],italicsadded.)fn.3AlthoughtheNewYorkTimesrestrictionappliedonlytopublicofficials,byfindingconstitutionalprotectionfordefamation,thecourt"effectedaprofoundchangeinthehithertosettledlawofdefamationandoverruledthepriorcommonlawofpracticallyeverystate."(Eldredge,supra,§51,p.255.)
[5]ShortlyafterNewYorkTimes,supra,376U.S.254,thecourtfurtherrestrictedthecommonlawofdefamationbyholdingthat"publicfigures"--likepublicofficials--mustalsoprovemaliceundertheNewYorkTimesstandardtorecoverfordefamatorycriticism.[6](CurtisPublishingCo.v.Butts(1967)388U.S.130,162-165[18L.Ed.2d1094,1115-1117,87S.Ct.1975](conc.opn.ofWarren,C.J.).)fn.4
TheNewYorkTimesprivilegewastakenonestepfurtherinRosenbloomv.Metromedia(1971)403U.S.29,52[29L.Ed.2d296,316-317,91S.Ct.1811],inwhichapluralityofthecourtconcludedthemalicestandardshouldextendtodefamatoryfalsehoodsrelatingtoprivatepersonsifthestatementsconcernedmattersofgeneralorpublicinterest.Thatisessentiallythesameconclusiondefen
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Brown Kelly Broadcasting Co