新闻自由与个人名誉的艰难平衡——关于美国媒体的诽谤诉讼

Keeping a Delicate Balance between Protection of Freedom of Press and Protection of Persons Reputation-From New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to Gertz v. Robert Welch

美国最高法院在《纽约时报》案(1964年)中确定了诽谤诉讼的“确实恶意”原则。在后来的名誉权官司中,美国最高法院又把这一原则的适用范围从官员扩大到“公众人物”。由于何谓“公众人物”缺乏明确的定义,由此引发了媒体滥用新闻自由权的倾向。为此,最高法院在1974年又作出了缩小《纽约时报》案原则适用范围的裁决。新闻自由权和个人名誉权是现代社会中最重要的公权和私权之一,美国最高法院不得不艰难地在这两者之间维持某种动态的平衡。

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)established a new standard of 'actual malice' in libel suits involving public officials seeking damages, and it was the first time that the 1st A-mendnient of U. S. Constitution was used to protect the freedom of press in private libel case. Later the standard was extended to so-called ' public figures'. Since defining a public figure depends on the context of case, the U. S. Supreme Court fined the 'actual malice' standard in the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch ( 1974). However, protection the freedom of press and protection of persons reputation often conflict each other, and both rights are cherished by the Americans, the U. S. Supreme Court has been trying very hard to keep a delicate balance in the libel case.