Libel decision affirms freedom of press

Press, 3 May 1984, Page 4

Libel decision affirms freedom of press

NZPA-Reuter Washington

The United States Supreme Court, in an important freedom of the press case, has refused to reinstate a libel award won and then lost by a stereospeaker maker against “Consumer Reports” magazine, saying malice had not been proved. In 1970, the magazine published a review of a new speaker system made by the Bose Corporation which said that sounds from the speaker “tended to wander around the room.”

Bose filed a product disparagement suit against Consumers Union, publisher of the magazine, and was awarded $115,296 in damages by a Federal District Court in Massachusetts.

The case then went to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the award, saying that malice had not been proved against the magazine, as required for damages.

The Supreme Court, in a six-to-three decision, upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, adding that appellate courts had a duty to review such cases to preserve the freedom of the press.

“It (appellate review) reflects a deeply held conviction that judges, and particularly members of this court, must exercise such review in order to preserve the precious liberties established and ordained by the Constitution,” the Court said.

“Judges, as expositors of the Constitution, must decide independently whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to cross the constitutional threshold that bars the entry of any judgment that is not supported by clear and convincing proof of actual malice. “The Court of Appeals was correct in its conclusions that there is a significant difference between proof of actual malice and mere proof of falsity, and that such additional proof is lacking in this case,” the Supreme Court said. Justice William Rehnquist, in a dissent, said he believed that district courts were in the best position to determine whether malice bad been proved, based on testimony at trial.

Bose said the Court of Appeals should not have overturned the District Court’s decision because the lower court ruling was based on facts determined in the trial. Bose cited a rule of law which provides “findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” However, the Supreme Court said that when freedom of the press > issues were involved, it had repeatedly ruled that an appellate, court could make an independent examination of the whole record to make sure a judgment did not intrude on the right of free expression.