Free Speech

Case - 441 U.S. 153

Parties: Herbert v. Lando

Date: 1979-04-18

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 53 - In recognition of the social values served by the First Amendment, our decisions have referred to N153* "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences,"

Notes:

  • N153* / quote / endorsement / Q0323 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) information
  • (is) receiving ideas and experiences

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19790418.441.US.153.xml&keyword1=right of&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-15 12:38:56 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef

Paragraph: 87 - As this Court recognized in Sullivan, error is inevitable in such debate, and, if forced to guarantee the truth of all assertions, potential critics might suppress statements believed to be accurate N90* "because of doubt whether [truthfulness] can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so." 376 U.S., at 279, 84 S.Ct., at 725. Such self-censorship would be incompatible with the tenets on which the First Amendment and our democratic institutions are founded. Under a representative system of government, an informed electorate is a precondition of responsive decisionmaking. See Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 1424, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250, 56 S.Ct. 444, 449, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936); A. Meiklejohn, Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government 88-89 (1948). To secure public exposure to the widest possible range of information and insights, some margin of error must be tolerated.

Notes:

  • N90* / quote / endorsement / Q0392 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (why is) Margin of Error and the Press

Phrase match: . Such self-censorship would be incompatible

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19790418.441.US.153.xml&keyword1=censorship&wordsBefore=3&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-29 14:11:32 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 7 - These cases rested primarily on the conviction that the common law of libel gave insufficient protection to the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of press and that to avoid self-censorship it was essential that liability for damages be conditioned on the specified showing of culpable conduct by those who publish damaging falsehood. Given the required proof, however, damages N91* liability for defamation abridges neither freedom of speech nor freedom of the press.

Notes:

  • N91* / / / / forgotten word here?

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) Damages for Liability

Phrase match: to avoid self-censorship it was essential

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19790418.441.US.153.xml&keyword1=censorship&wordsBefore=3&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-29 14:11:32 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 22 - If the publication is false but there is an exonerating explanation, the defendant will surely testify to this effect. Why should not the plaintiff be permitted to inquire before trial? On the other hand, if the publisher in fact had serious doubts about accuracy, but published nevertheless, no undue self-censorship will result from permitting the relevant inquiry. Only knowing or reckless error will be discouraged; and unless there is to be an absolute First Amendment privilege to inflict injury by knowing or reckless conduct, which respondents do not suggest, constitutional values will not be threatened.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (why is) Culpability for Libel
  • (why is) Libel and The Press

Phrase match: no undue self-censorship will result from

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19790418.441.US.153.xml&keyword1=censorship&wordsBefore=3&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-03-29 14:11:32 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 6 - N112* Until New York Times, the prevailing jurisprudence was that N113* "[l]ibelous utterances [are not] within the area of constitutionally protected speech . . . ." Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266, 72 S.Ct. 725, 735, 96 L.Ed. 919 (1952); see also Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 482-483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1307-1308, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 707-708, 51 S.Ct. 625, 628, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). The accepted view was that neither civil nor liability for defamatory publications abridges freedom of speech or freedom of the press, and a majority of jurisdictions made publishers liable civilly for their defamatory publications regardless of their intent.New York Times and Butts effected major changes in the standards applicable to civil libel actions. Under these cases public officials and public figures who sue for defamation must prove knowing or reckless falsehood in order to establish liability.

Notes:

  • N112* / / / / the segment discusses the move toward a higher bar to prove libel
  • N113* / quote / endorsement / Q0424 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (is not) libel

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1970s/19790418.441.US.153.xml&keyword1= speech protected speech&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk