Η ΑΙΧΜΗΡΗ ΚΡΙΤΙΚΗ ΩΣ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ - page 41

±¯ §°¦±¥°¦¯ ±¯² ›£¨¡±¯Ÿ š¥¨¯Ÿ¦¯² £®š¦¡©£°¯®±¯Ÿ 149
ÒÎ× Ì¾ÇÎ× ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ ŒÅ ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ ÉÄÉÏÒÈ ¼ ōÅËÒŽÍÅÒÁÉ ÑÅ ¾ÌÅÕ
ÒÉÕ ×ÎÓ»ÑÅÉÕ Î× ÁÆÎÐÎÀÍ Ì¾ÇÎ ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ, ÁÍÅÊÁÐÒ¼ÒÔÕ ÒÈÕ
ÉÄɾÒÈÒÁÕ ÒÎ× ÅÍÇÎÍÒÎÕ. ¨Å ÒÈÍ ÅÉÑÁÇÔǼ ÒÎ× Ó»ŒÁÒÎÕ ÒÎ× Ó»ŒÁÒÎÕ ÄȌÎѽÎ×
ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ ÔÕ ËÐÉÒÈнÎ× Ò½ÓÅÒÁÉ ÐÁÇŠؼÒȌÁ ÅÆÁЌÎÇ¼Õ ÒÈÕ ÁÍÒÉËÅɌÅÍÉ-
Ë¼Õ Å×ÓÀÍÈÕ ÑÒÎ×Õ Ä×ÑÆȌÉÑÒÉËÎÀÕ ÉÑÖ×ÐÉьÎÀÕ ËÁÒ ÄȌÎѽÔÍ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐÇÏÍ
ÇÉÁ Ó»ŒÁ ËÁÓÁÐ ÉÄÉÔÒÉËÎÀ ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ, Î× ÄÅÍ ÑÖÅÒ½ØÅÒÁÉ ŒÅ ÒÈÍ ÑËÈÑÈ
ÒÔÍ ÄȌÎѽÔÍ ËÁÓÈ˾ÍÒÔÍ ÒÎ×Õ;386 ¨ÎÐŽ ÍÁ ÓÅÔÐÈÓŽ ¾ÒÉ È ÁÍÁÆÎÐ ÑÒÈÍ
¥epps ÒÈÕ ÅнÒÔÑÈÕ Î× «Î ō½ÄÉËÎÕ Ì¾ÇÎÕ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄȌÎѽÎ× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ
ËÁÉ Î ÅÍÇÔÍ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎ Ð¾ÑԍΠ¼ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎÕ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐǾջ ׍ÎÍÎŽ ¾ÒÉ ÒÎ
šÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ ÁÁÉÒŽ ÑÔÐÅ×ÒÉËÏÕ ÒÈ Ñ×ÍÄÐΌ¼ ÒÔÍ ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ÐÎڍÎÓ»ÑÅÔÍ ÇÉÁ
ÒÈÍ ÁÐÎÖ¼ Ñ×ÍÒÁnjÁÒÉË¼Õ ÐÎÑÒÁѽÁÕ ËÁÉ, Ñ×ÍÁ˾ÌÎ×ÓÁ, ÒÈÍ Å½ÐÐÉÃÈ ÒÎ×
ÂÐÎ×Õ Á¾ÄÅÉÊÈÕ ÒÈÕ ÁÍÁ̼ÓÅÉÁÕ ÒÎ× Å½ÄÉËÎ× ÉÑÖ×ÐÉьÎÀ ÑÒÎÍ ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ -
ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎ Ð¾ÑԍΠ¼ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎ ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐǾ;387 ¢ÑÅÉ ÒÔÍ ÁÍÔÒ»ÐÔ ÐÎËÀÒÅÉ ¾ÒÉ,
386. BÌ. ÖÁÐÁËÒÈÐÉÑÒÉËÑÅ Sisler v. Gannett Co., 104 ®.J. 256, 266-268 (1986), ¾Î× ÁÍÁ-
Æ»ÐÅÒÁÉ Å½ 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, 2nd 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), ¾Î× ÁÍÁÆ»ÐÅÉ ¾ÒÉ ÒÎ ÔÕ ÍÔ
ؼÒȌÁ ÄÅÍ ÅÉÌÀÅÒÁÉ Á¾ ÒÈÍ Dun & Bradstreet, Ñ×ÍōÏÕ ŒÎÐŽ ÍÁ ׍ÎÒÅÓŽ ¾ÒÉ ÑÅ
ÉÑÖ×ÐÉьÎÀÕ ÇÉÁ ËÁÓÁÐ ÉÄÉÔÒÉË ØÈÒ¼ŒÁÒÁ, Á˾ŒÈ ËÁÉ ÁÍ ÅŒÌ»ËÎÍÒÁÉ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎÉ
ÌÅÉÒÎ×ÐÇν ¼ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÁ Ð¾ÑԍÁ, ÅÆÁЌ¾ØÅÒÁÉ Î ËÁ;ÍÁÕ ÒÈÕ Gertz Åн ÀÁÐÊÈÕ
ÒÎ×ÌÖÉÑÒÎÍ ÁŒ»ÌÅÉÁÕ, ¼ ÁÐÁˌÒÅÒÁÉ Î ÅÍ Ì¾ÇÔ ËÁ;ÍÁÕ ËÁÉ ÅÆÁЌ¾ØÅÒÁÉ È
ÁÍÒÉËÅɌÅÍÉ˼ Å×ÓÀÍÈ ÒÎ× common law.
387. ¢Ì. ÑÖÅÒÉË Taylor D.M., ¾.., 179, È ÎÎ½Á ÔÑÒ¾ÑΠōÉÑȌÁ½ÍÅÉ ¾ÒÉ ÑÒÉÕ ÅÐɍÒÏ-
ÑÅÉÕ Î× Î ÅÍÇÔÍ Å½ÍÁÉ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎ Ð¾ÑԍÎ, Π̾ÇÎÕ ÅÊ ÎÐÉьÎÀ ÓÅÔÐŽÒÁÉ ÄȌÎѽ-
Î× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ. žÐÎÕ Á×Ò¼Í ÒÈÍ ËÁÒÅÀÓ×ÍÑÈ ÂÌ. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine,
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1197 (9th 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 ÅЌÈÍŽÁ »ÄÔÑÅ
ËÁÉ ÒÎ ¡š ÑÒÈÍ ×¾ÓÅÑÈ Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (485 U.S. 46, 52 [1988]), ŒÅÒÁ-
ÇÅÍ»ÑÒÅÐÈ ÒÈÕ Dun & Bradstreet, ¾Î× ÆÁ½ÍÅÒÁÉ ÍÁ ÅÊΌÎÉÏÍÅÉ ÒΠ̾ÇÎ ÇÉÁ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÁ
Ð¾ÑԍÁ ŒÅ ÒΠ̾ÇÎ ÄȌÎѽÎ× ÅÍÄÉÁÆ»ÐÎÍÒÎÕ («speech relating to public figures...
does have constitutional value»). ±Î šÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ Ò¾ÍÉÑÅ ¾ÒÉ, ÁоÌÎ Î× ÄÅÍ ÐÎÑÒÁ-
ÒÅÀÅÒÁÉ ËÓŠŽÄÎ×Õ Ì¾ÇÎ× ¾ÑÎÍ ÁÆÎÐÑÒÁ ÄȌ¾ÑÉÁ Ð¾ÑԍÁ, Î ÅÍÇÔÍ - ÄȌ¾ÑÉÎ
Ð¾ÑԍΠÐ»ÅÉ ÍÁ ÁÎÄŽÊÅÉ, ÑÅ ËÓÅ ÅнÒÔÑÈ, ÒÈÍ ÀÁÐÊÈ ÐÁnjÁÒÉËÎÀ ľÌÎ×
ÇÉÁ ÒÈ ÓŌÅ̽ÔÑÈ ÒÈÕ Å×ÓÀÍÈÕ ÒÎ× ÎŒÉÌÈÒ¼. ¨Å ÒÎÍ ÒоÎ Á×Ò¾ ÒÎ šÉËÁÑÒ¼ÐÉÎ ÁÐͼÓÈ-
ËÅ ÍÁ ÁÍÁÇÍÔнÑÅÉ ÒÈÍ ËÁÒÈÇÎнÁ ÅÍÇÎÍÒÁ ÄȌÎѽÎ× ÐÎÑύÎ×/̾ÇÎ× ÇÉÁ ÉÄÉÔÒÉË