Abstract
The balancing of freedom of speech and the protection of personal reputation has been the subject of litigation for many years. The law of defamation of public figures was finally settled by the United States Supreme Court in 1964 with its landmark holding in New York Times v. Sullivan. In New York Times, Justic Brennan held that public officials could recover for defamation only upon showing that their defamers knew or should have known that their statements were false. This standard has been upheld for over thirty years. Recently, however, the ruling in New York Time has been questioned and rejected abroad, by courts in both Australia and South Africa.
Part II of this note begins by discussing the current status of public figure defamation law in the United States. Part III discusses Australian defamation law with respect to the Australian case, Theophanous v. The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd. Part IV discusses the 1996 South African case Holomisa v. Argus Newspapers Ltd. Part V of this note examines the logic of the foreign cases and the possible impact these cases may have on United States public official defamation law. The note concludes by suggesting that because of the unreasonable assumptions made in the foreign cases and the inadequate protection of free speech provided under the decisions of the foreign cases, these recent rulings will have little if any impact on U.S. defamation law.
Recommended Citation
Grimsley, Michael S.
(1995)
"Defamation of Public Figures: Is New York Times Outdated?,"
Florida Journal of International Law: Vol. 10:
Iss.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/fjil/vol10/iss2/5