About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

16 Comm. Law. 1 (1998-1999)

handle is hein.journals/comlaw16 and id is 1 raw text is: (0 Communicafions cc Publication of the Forum on Communications Law American Bar Association Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 1998 W W W Corporate Plaintiffs: Public or Private Figures? LYNN B. OBERLANDER Should corporations be treated differently from individuals when they seek redress for an allegedly defamatory publica- tion? After all, a corporation is not a natural person, it is a cre- ation of the state. The corporation, depending on its type of business, may be regulated, and may hold itself out to the general public, whom it seeks as customers. There are sub- stantial reasons to provide corporations with less protection from defamation actions than individuals. But the courts, when faced with corporate libel plaintiffs, have increasingly used the Supreme Court's test for determining whether indi- viduals are general or limited purpose public figures and therefore are required to prove that defendants acted with actual malice in publishing the allegedly defamatory material. It is, of course, the twenty-four-year-old case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 1 that establishes the parameters for deter- mining whether a plaintiff is a general purpose public figure, Chair's Colum n .................................... 2 Business Liabilities on the Internet .................. 3 Report from Scottsdale ........................... 11 a limited purpose public figure, or a private figure. The classification often determines liability, as general and limit- ed purpose public figures must prove that a defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., that they either knew that the allegedly defamatory statement was false or acted with reck- less disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. The Gertz Court provided two policy justifications for treating public and private figures differently. First, public figures enjoy significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private indi- viduals normally enjoy.2 Second, public figures invite attention and comment as a result of having voluntarily injected themselves into the debate.3 However, the Court dis- tinguished between general public figures, those individuals Continued on page 24 Book Review: Access to the Law of Access .......... 19 C ourtside ..................................... 20 Current Bibliography ............................ 22 IN THIS ISSUE I II.--+;- k- r2--f V,11-k-1,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most