The Mary Junck Research Colloquium Series Fall 2008
Back
School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr. Ruth Walden
Professor School of Journalism and Mass Communication UNC-Chapel Hill
Sept. 18	Deciphering Dun & Bradstreet: Does the First Amendment Matter in Private Figure-Private Concern Defamation Cases?
	In Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private figure plaintiffs defamed during the discussion of matters of private concern do not have to prove actual malice to collect presumed or punitive damages. This ruling stood in contrast to the Court’s decision eleven years earlier in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., that the First Amendment required all plaintiffs — public and private — to prove actual malice to win presumed or punitive damages. The language of the Dun & Bradstreet opinions suggested that at least some members of the Court felt the First Amendment did not apply at all in private figure-private issue defamation suits. The research sought to determine how lower federal courts and state appellate courts have interpreted Dun & Bradstreet to identify whether and how constitutional protections are being applied to private plaintiff-private issue defamation cases. In my talk I will discuss the impact the Supreme Court’s convoluted reasoning in Dun & Bradstreet has hadand offer three alternative solutions to appropriately balance the First Amendment rights of defendants with the reputational interests of private-figure plaintiffs in defamation cases arising from the discussion of matters of private concern.
If you would like additional details or information about the colloquium series or have any suggestions, please contact Sriram "Sri" Kalyanaraman E-mail: sri@unc.edu Phone: 919-843-5858