Jump to content

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dodger67 (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 25 November 2016 (→External Links: Formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Comment: A search on Google Scholar came up with several possible good sources in the form of textbooks and journal articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: A single source is never enough. Look for additional sources such as books or journal articles that discuss the case in significant detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 US 29 - Supreme Court 1971[1] a United States Supreme Court case that examined the lawsuit between George Rosenbloom and Metromedia under the pretense of libel. This case was responsible for establishing the idea that the knowingly and recklessly false standard for defamatory statements should apply to private individuals as well as public officials. Concluding that the story was a matter of public concern the supreme court ruled that it did not matter that Rosenbloom was a private citizen; however, the evidence provided in the case did not support the damages awarded to Rosenbloom. The decision was made June 7, 1971 with a 5-3 decision.[2]

Background

A byproduct of the first amendment the court had been forced to provide limitations outlining the offense of libel. This was the topic of a series of court cases two of the most famous being New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. At the focal point of these cases was the knowingly and recklessly false requirement, which had been used to protect public officials from libel. After raiding his home, George Rosenbloom was arrested in Philadelphia in October of 1963 for distribution of nudist magazines, a broadcast news outlet that reported every half hour broadcasted on the arrest of George Rosenbloom using his name when talking about police seizure of "obscene books" [3]. Later stories ran by Metromedia excluded Rosenblooms name, when using language such as "girlie look peddlers" and "smut distributors"[4]. After his acquittal of criminal obscenity charges in May of 1964 [1], Rosenbloom filed a suit in the District Court under the Pennsylvania libel law. Rosenbloom claimed that the depiction of his arrest as well as the description of the books were both proved false from his acquittal as well as defamatory. The outcome of this case lead to the petitioner, George Rosenbloom, being awarded $25,000 in general damages and $725,000 in punitive damages.

Decision

The Supreme Court made a 5-3 majority decision that upheld the ruling as it was made in The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In conjunction with the decision being upheld the Supreme court reduced the punitive damages from the originally awarded $725,000 to $250,000[5]

References

  1. ^ a b "403 U.S. 29 (1971) ROSENBLOOM v. METROMEDIA, INC". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 24 November 2016.
  2. ^ "Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 23, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/66
  3. ^ "Rosenbloom V. Metromedia." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999) (1999): N.PAG. History Reference Center. Web. 24 Nov. 2016.
  4. ^ "Rosenbloom V. Metromedia". oyez.org.
  5. ^ "Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. (1971)". Bc.edu. Retrieved 2016-11-25.

Further Reading

[1] 


Supreme Court Text (Rosenbloom V. Metromedia Inc.)]
  1. ^ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/29
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosenbloom_v._Metromedia,_Inc.&oldid=751365815"