Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

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

One person's "bias," of course, is another's belief based on facts he or she has learned. Here, Petitioner itself acknowledged to the Court of Appeals that Behar's beliefs about Scientology were held in "good faith." (See p. 4 above.) Such "good faith" belief is, in and of itself, inconsistent with actual malice.
As the Court of Appeals noted, the district court entertained the possibility that bias could be relevant in advancing a claim of purposeful avoidance of the truth in the reporting process.
Source: Wikisource

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

The court's focus on the "speaker's belief in his statements" (words omitted from the Petition's quotation) fairly reflects this Court's teachings as to the meaning of actual malice. One who has a belief in his statement is one who has not acted with either knowledge of falsity or "serious doubts as to the truth of his publication." St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968) . As Sullivan itself recognized in defining actual malice, the key question is whether the statement constitutes "what the defendant believes to be truthful information...."
Source: Wikisource

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

In the world of Scientology with which Behar was familiar, where frame-ups have a long history, where preying on those with psychological problems is a way of life, and where sustained intimidation and abuse of critics is the rule and not the exception, Fishman and Geertz's account is one that Behar had every reason to credit, [12] Behar believed Geertz and Fishman, and the courts below correctly concluded that CSI could not demonstrate that the Fishman statement was published with actual malice.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature