±¯ §°¦±¥°¦¯ ±¯² £¨¡±¯ ¥¨¯¦¯² £®¦¡©£°¯®±¯
149
ÒÎ× Ì¾ÇÎ× ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ Å ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ ÉÄÉÏÒÈ ¼ ÅÅËÒŽÍÅÒÁÉ ÑÅ ¾ÌÅÕ
ÒÉÕ ×ÎÓ»ÑÅÉÕ Î× ÁÆÎÐÎÀÍ Ì¾ÇÎ ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ, ÁÍÅÊÁÐÒ¼ÒÔÕ ÒÈÕ
ÉÄɾÒÈÒÁÕ ÒÎ× ÅÍÇÎÍÒÎÕ. ¨Å ÒÈÍ ÅÉÑÁÇÔǼ ÒÎ× Ó»ÁÒÎÕ ÒÎ× Ó»ÁÒÎÕ ÄÈÎѽÎ×
ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ ÔÕ ËÐÉÒÈнÎ× Ò½ÓÅÒÁÉ ÐÁÇŠؼÒÈÁ ÅÆÁÐÎÇ¼Õ ÒÈÕ ÁÍÒÉËÅÉÅÍÉ-
Ë¼Õ Å×ÓÀÍÈÕ ÑÒÎ×Õ Ä×ÑÆÈÉÑÒÉËÎÀÕ ÉÑÖ×ÐÉÑÎÀÕ ËÁÒ ÄÈÎѽÔÍ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐÇÏÍ
ÇÉÁ Ó»Á ËÁÓÁÐ ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ, Î× ÄÅÍ ÑÖÅÒ½ØÅÒÁÉ Å ÒÈÍ ÑËÈÑÈ
ÒÔÍ ÄÈÎѽÔÍ ËÁÓÈ˾ÍÒÔÍ ÒÎ×Õ;
386
¨ÎÐŽ ÍÁ ÓÅÔÐÈÓŽ ¾ÒÉ È ÁÍÁÆÎÐ ÑÒÈÍ
¥epps ÒÈÕ ÅнÒÔÑÈÕ Î× «Î ŽÄÉËÎÕ Ì¾ÇÎÕ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄÈÎѽÎ× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ
ËÁÉ Î ÅÍÇÔÍ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄȾÑÉΠоÑÔÎ ¼ ÄȾÑÉÎÕ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐǾջ ×ÎÍÎŽ ¾ÒÉ ÒÎ
ÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ ÁÁÉÒŽ ÑÔÐÅ×ÒÉËÏÕ ÒÈ Ñ×ÍÄÐμ ÒÔÍ ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ÐÎÚÎÓ»ÑÅÔÍ ÇÉÁ
ÒÈÍ ÁÐÎÖ¼ Ñ×ÍÒÁÇÁÒÉË¼Õ ÐÎÑÒÁѽÁÕ ËÁÉ, Ñ×ÍÁ˾ÌÎ×ÓÁ, ÒÈÍ Å½ÐÐÉÃÈ ÒÎ×
ÂÐÎ×Õ Á¾ÄÅÉÊÈÕ ÒÈÕ ÁÍÁ̼ÓÅÉÁÕ ÒÎ× Å½ÄÉËÎ× ÉÑÖ×ÐÉÑÎÀ ÑÒÎÍ ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ -
ÄȾÑÉΠоÑÔÎ ¼ ÄȾÑÉÎ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐǾ;
387
¢ÑÅÉ ÒÔÍ ÁÍÔÒ»ÐÔ ÐÎËÀÒÅÉ ¾ÒÉ,
386. BÌ. ÖÁÐÁËÒÈÐÉÑÒÉËÑÅ Sisler v. Gannett Co., 104 ®.J. 256, 266-268 (1986), ¾Î× ÁÍÁ-
Æ»ÐÅÒÁÉ Å½ Ì»ÊÅÉ: «The interaction of these two themes under the First Amendment
yields four possible combinations, which are by no means static or immutable. Three
of these combinations were identified in Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps...There,
the Supreme Court, in holding that the First Amendment requires a private figure
to prove that defamatory speech is false when he seeks damages against a media
defendant for speech of public concern, summarized the federal accommodation of
First Amendment and individual reputational interests
...
In a fourth case, the speech
concerns the private affairs of a "public person" ...the constitutional requirements
are relaxed, as with all speech on matters of private concern». ¢Ì.
Smolla R.A.,
Law
of Defamation, 2
nd
ed., 1999, Chapter 3, § 3:22 ËÁÉ 3:23,
ÒÎÍ ½ÄÉÎ
, Dun & Bradstreet,
Hepps, and Liberty Lobby: A new analytic primer on the future course of defama-
tion, 75 Geo.L.J. 1519, 1528, 1544-1545, 1568 (1987), ¾Î× ÁÍÁÆ»ÐÅÉ ¾ÒÉ ÒÎ ÔÕ ÍÔ
ؼÒÈÁ ÄÅÍ ÅÉÌÀÅÒÁÉ Á¾ ÒÈÍ Dun & Bradstreet, Ñ×ÍÅÏÕ ÎÐŽ ÍÁ ×ÎÒÅÓŽ ¾ÒÉ ÑÅ
ÉÑÖ×ÐÉÑÎÀÕ ÇÉÁ ËÁÓÁÐ ÉÄÉÔÒÉË ØÈÒ¼ÁÒÁ, ÁË¾È ËÁÉ ÁÍ ÅÌ»ËÎÍÒÁÉ ÄȾÑÉÎÉ
ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐÇν ¼ ÄȾÑÉÁ оÑÔÁ, ÅÆÁоØÅÒÁÉ Î ËÁ;ÍÁÕ ÒÈÕ Gertz Åн ÀÁÐÊÈÕ
ÒÎ×ÌÖÉÑÒÎÍ Á»ÌÅÉÁÕ, ¼ ÁÐÁËÒÅÒÁÉ Î ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ËÁ;ÍÁÕ ËÁÉ ÅÆÁоØÅÒÁÉ È
ÁÍÒÉËÅÉÅÍÉ˼ Å×ÓÀÍÈ ÒÎ× common law.
387. ¢Ì. ÑÖÅÒÉË
Taylor D.M
., ¾.., 179, È ÎνÁ ÔÑÒ¾ÑÎ ÅÉÑÈÁ½ÍÅÉ ¾ÒÉ ÑÒÉÕ ÅÐÉÒÏ-
ÑÅÉÕ Î× Î ÅÍÇÔÍ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄȾÑÉΠоÑÔÎ, Π̾ÇÎÕ ÅÊ ÎÐÉÑÎÀ ÓÅÔÐŽÒÁÉ ÄÈÎѽ-
Î× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ. ÐÎÕ Á×Ò¼Í ÒÈÍ ËÁÒÅÀÓ×ÍÑÈ ÂÌ. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine,
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1197 (9
th
Cir. 1989), Culliton v. Mize, 403 N.W.2d 853, 854-856
(Minn.Ct.App.1987), State v. Powell, 839 P.2d 139, 149 (N.M.Ct.App. 1992), DiSalle v.
P.G.Publ’g Co., 544 A.2d 1345, 1365 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1988). ±ÈÍ ÔÕ ÍÔ ÅÐÈÍŽÁ »ÄÔÑÅ
ËÁÉ ÒÎ ¡ ÑÒÈÍ ×¾ÓÅÑÈ Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (485 U.S. 46, 52 [1988]), ÅÒÁ-
ÇÅÍ»ÑÒÅÐÈ ÒÈÕ Dun & Bradstreet, ¾Î× ÆÁ½ÍÅÒÁÉ ÍÁ ÅÊÎÎÉÏÍÅÉ ÒΠ̾ÇÎ ÇÉÁ ÄȾÑÉÁ
оÑÔÁ Å ÒΠ̾ÇÎ ÄÈÎѽÎ× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ («speech relating to public figures...
does have constitutional value»). ±Î ÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ Ò¾ÍÉÑÅ ¾ÒÉ, ÁоÌÎ Î× ÄÅÍ ÐÎÑÒÁ-
ÒÅÀÅÒÁÉ ËÓŠŽÄÎ×Õ Ì¾ÇÎ× ¾ÑÎÍ ÁÆÎÐÑÒÁ ÄȾÑÉÁ оÑÔÁ, Î ÅÍÇÔÍ - ÄȾÑÉÎ
оÑÔΠлÅÉ ÍÁ ÁÎÄŽÊÅÉ, ÑÅ ËÓÅ ÅнÒÔÑÈ, ÒÈÍ ÀÁÐÊÈ ÐÁÇÁÒÉËÎÀ ľÌÎ×
ÇÉÁ ÒÈ ÓÅÅ̽ÔÑÈ ÒÈÕ Å×ÓÀÍÈÕ ÒÎ× ÎÉÌÈÒ¼. ¨Å ÒÎÍ ÒоΠÁ×Ò¾ ÒÎ ÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ ÁÐͼÓÈ-
ËÅ ÍÁ ÁÍÁÇÍÔнÑÅÉ ÒÈÍ ËÁÒÈÇÎнÁ ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ ÄÈÎѽÎ× ÐÎÑÏÎ×/̾ÇÎ× ÇÉÁ ÉÄÉÔÒÉË