Pre-1964 common law analysis of NYT v. Sullivan

1. There are six elements of libel. Even notwithstanding the holding of NYT v. Sullivan on the element of fault, Commissioner Sullivan still has not made out a libel case against the Times. Therefore, the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court is reversed.

2. Elements

1) Defamation

because these statements would lead a segment of the community to think less of the plaintiff, the statements are defamatory. The words are not vague, nor is this a libel-proof plaintiff.

2) Publication

• the ad containing these defamatory statements was published in a national newspaper, easily satisfying this element.

3) Injury

• at common law, libel plaintiffs did not have to show any specific special damages. Injury was presumed by a showing of defamatory publication. Therefore, this element is satisfied.

4) Identification

• a libel plaintiff must show the statements are "of and concerning" him. Although the plaintiff need not be named, he must be sufficiently identifiable to be harmed by the defamation.
• Here, Commissioner Sullivan was identifiable by references to the police, since he is in charge of the police force.

5) Fault

• at common law, cts held publications strictly liable for defamatory statements.
• since the plaintiff, under this standard, doesn't need to show negligence, recklessness, knowledge or intent, this element is automatically satisfied by proof of the defamatory publication.

6) Truth

• truth is an absolute defense to libel, although it is rarely used b/c its hard to prove
• courts do not require proof of literal truth -- just the "sting" of the charge
• The article contained minor inaccuracies, but the sting of the charge was true -- although police did not "ring" the campus, they were deployed in large numbers