Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., et al. — Supreme Court Reply to Respondents' Brief in Opposition
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

Summary

“Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc., et al. — Supreme Court Reply to Respondents' Brief in Opposition”, published in 2001, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as actual malice, New York and Respondents.

Quotes from Church of Scientology International v… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ The Court of Appeals' Decision Invites Trial Courts to Consider Bias as Strong Evidence of a Lack of Actual Malice, Contrary to Harte-Hanks and Liberty Lobby and to Every Other Circuit
A journalist's animus or bias, whether based on pure prejudice or upon knowledge of actual or alleged past misconduct, certainly can cause the journalist to approach his subject in a predetermined manner, and can lead him to willfully ignore or suppress favorable evidence to his subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ Rather than directly argue that a plaintiff may have no redeemable reputation, respondents claim that a reporter, informed of prior accounts of alleged misdeeds of his subject, in effect can never be found to have acted with actual malice in making new allegations of comparable misdeeds against that subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ Read as a whole, the passage clearly suggests that, because "belief and "exaggerations" must be regarded as enhancing the likelihood that statements are made without actual malice, the district court properly weighed the existence of "bias" as proving an absence of malice as long as there is no "extreme departure." The court of appeals' conclusion thus does violate the Court's holding, in Harte-Hanks, that the question of which way an author's bias cuts ordinarily is a jury question. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ Respondents' Attempt to Create a New Variant of the Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine - the Actual-Malice-Proof Reporter - is Not a Proper Basis to Deny Certiorari In the wake of the Court's explicit rejection of the incremental harm doctrine and implicit rejection of the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine in Masson, respondents attempt to achieve the same result by positing what in effect is an "Actual-Malice-Proof Reporter" doctrine. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ No court has suggested what the courts below did: that ill will or bias should be considered as strong evidence of an absence of actual malice, justifying summary judgment on behalf of a defendant unless a plaintiff can demonstrate an "extreme departure from standard investigative techniques" (Pet., App. A, 10a) (emphasis added) .↑ FN5. Respondents'assertion that Professor Neubome conceded Behar's good faith at oral argument below (Br. in Opposition at 4, 12) , is frivolous on its face.↑ FN6. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ Worse, Behar failed even to mention in his article that Fishman had been convicted for trying to frame CSI for the very crimes Behar reported.
Respondents' argument-that Behar was justified in his actions and did engage in an adequate investigation despite his bias - should have been made to a jury; it is not sufficient to compel summary judgment as a matter of law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ In furthering that aim, respondents cannot hide behind their knowledge of the allegations of past misconduct to shield knowing or reckless false statements about more recent events. See Harte-Hanks Communications, 491 U.S. at 682. Respondents' argument again illustrates the improper assumption of monolithic reputation. It is not true that moral identity coincides with identity of name or body, that an individual is properly deemed "guilty" of one act because he is alleged to have committed other, previous wrongful acts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Church of Scientology International v… (2001)

“ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ... 5
Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ... 3
Fulani v. New York Times Co., 260 A.D.2d 215, 686 N.Y.S.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) ... ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Church of Scientology International v… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature