St Amant v. Thompson

Citation390 U.S. 727,20 L.Ed.2d 262,88 S.Ct. 1323
Decision Date29 April 1968
Docket NumberNo. 517,517
PartiesPhil A. ST. AMANT, Petitioner, v. Herman A. THOMPSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Russell J. Schonekas, New Orleans, La., for petitioner.

Robert L. Kleinpeter, Baton Rouge, La., for respondent.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether the Louisiana Supreme Court, in sustaining a judgment for damages in a public official's defamation action, correctly interpreted and applied the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), that the plaintiff in such an action must prove that the defamatory publication 'was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' 376 U.S., at 279—280, 84 S.Ct., at 726.

On June 27, 1962, petitioner St. Amant, a candidate for public office, made a televised speech in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In the course of this speech, St. Amant read a series of questions which he had put to J. D. Albin, a member of a Teamsters Union local, and Albin's answers to those questions. The exchange concerned the allegedly nefarious activities of E. G. Partin, the president of the local, and the alleged relationship between Partin and St. Amant's political opponent. One of Albin's answers concerned his efforts to prevent Partin from secreting union records; in this answer Albin referred to Herman A. Thompson, an East Baton Rouge Parish deputy sheriff and respondent here:

'Now, we knew that this safe was gonna be moved that night, but imagine our predicament, knowing of Ed's connections with the Sheriff's office through Herman Thompson, who made recent visits to the Hall to see Ed. We also knew of money that had passed hands between Ed and Herman Thompson * * * from Ed to Herman. We also knew of his connections with State Trooper Lieutenant Joe Green. We knew we couldn't get any help from there and we didn't know how far that he was involved in the Sheriff's office or the State Police office through that, and it was out of the jurisdiction of the City Police.'1

Thompson promptly brought suit for defamation, claiming that the publication had 'impute(d) * * * gross misconduct' and 'infer(red) conduct of the most nefarious nature.' The case was tried prior to the decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra. The trial judge ruled in Thompson's favor and awarded $5,000 in damages. Thereafter, in the course of entertaining and denying a motion for a new trial, the Court considered the ruling in New York Times, finding that rule no barrier to the judgment already entered. The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed because the record failed to show that St. Amant had acted with actual malice, as required by New York Times. 184 So.2d 314 (1966). The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the intermediate appellate court. 250 La. 405, 196 So.2d 255 (1967). In its view, there was sufficient evidence that St. Amant recklessly disregarded whether the statements about Thompson were true or false. We granted a writ of certiorari. 389 U.S. 1033, 88 S.Ct. 766, 19 L.Ed.2d 820 (1968).

For purposes of this case we accept the determinations of the Louisiana courts that the material published by St. Amant charged Thompson with criminal conduct, that the charge was false, and that Thompson was a public official 2 and so had the burden of proving that the false statements about Thompson were made with actual malice as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and later cases. We cannot, however, agree with either the Supreme Court of Louisiana or the trial court that Thompson sustained this burden.

Purporting to apply the New York Times malice standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that St. Amant had broadcast false information about Thompson recklessly, though not knowingly. Several reasons were given for this conclusion. St. Amant had no personal knowledge of Thompson's activities; he relied solely on Albin's affidavit although the record was silent as to Albin's reputation for veracity; he failed to verify the information with those in the union office who might have known the facts; he gave no consideration to whether or not the statements defamed Thompson and went ahead heedless of the consequences; and he mistakenly believed he had no responsibility for the broadcast because he was merely quoting Albin's words.

These considerations fall short of proving St. Amant's reckless disregard for the accuracy of his statements about Thompson. 'Reckless disregard,' it is true, cannot be fully encompassed in one infallible definition. Inevitably its outer limits will be marked out through case-by-case adjudication, as is true with so many legal stand- ards for judging concrete cases, whether the standard is provided by the Constitution, statutes, or case law. Our cases, however, have furnished meaningful guidance for the further definition of a reckless publication. In New York Times, supra, the plaintiff did not satisfy his burden because the record failed to show that the publisher was aware of the likelihood that he was circulating false information. In Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964), also decided before the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in this case, the opinion emphasized the necessity for a showing that a false publication was made with a 'high degree of awareness of * * * probable falsity.' 379 U.S., at 74, 85 S.Ct., at 216. Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 153, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 1991, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967), stated that evidence of either deliberate falsification or reckless publication 'despite the publisher's awareness of probable falsity' was essential to recovery by public officials in defamation actions. These cases are clear that reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.

It may be said that such a test puts a premium on ignorance, encourages the irresponsible publisher not to inquire, and permits the issue to be determined by the defendants testimony that he published the statement in good faith and unaware of its probable falsity. Concededly the reckless disregard standard may permit recovery in fewer situations than would a rule that publishers must satisfy the standard of the reasonable man or the prudent publisher. But New York Times and succeeding cases have emphasized that the stake of the people in public business and the conduct of public officials is so great that neither the defense of truth nor the standard of ordinary care would protect against self-censorship and thus adequately implement First Amendment policies. Neither lies nor false communications serve the ends of the First Amendment, and no one suggests their desirability or further proliferation. But to insure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones. We adhere to this view and to the line which our cases have drawn between false communications which are protected and those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1793 cases
  • Blankenship v. Napolitano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • March 31, 2020
    ...entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication" and yet published with such doubts. See St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968) ; see also Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 511 n.30, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 50......
  • Moe v. Wise
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 1999
    ...serious doubts as to the truth of the publication. Herron II, 112 Wash.2d at 775, 776 P.2d 98 (citing St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730-31, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968)). Although Moe has presented evidence that Robbins did not adequately investigate the defamatory allegation......
  • McCoy v. Hearst Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 1985
    ...p. 729; Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1958, 80 L.Ed.2d 502; St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) 390 U.S. 727, 732-733, 88 S.Ct. 1323; Belli v. Curtis Pub. Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 384, 389, 102 Cal.Rptr. 122.) "[T]he rule is that we 'examine for o......
  • Westfall, Matter of, No. 72022
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1991
    ...before sanctions were imposed. There is no one infallible definition of "reckless disregard." St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). The standard has often been defined as an awareness of the likelihood of the circulation of false information o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Protection From Legal Claims For Opinions About The Authenticity Of Art
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 19, 2013
    ...Investor Services, 499 F. 3d 520 (6th Cir. 2007). 16 See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). 17 St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 18 Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al, No. 08 Civ. 7508, 2012 WL 3584278 at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2012). 19 Id. at 36......
8 books & journal articles
  • Commercial Disparagement and Defamation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 756 (1985); Gertz, 418 U.S. at 347-49. 57. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 334 n.6; St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968); see Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Co., 745 F.2d 123, 139 (2d Cir. 1984); Wojnarowicz v. Am. Family Ass’n, 745 F. Supp. 130, 147 (S.D.N.......
  • Defamation and privacy
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...prudent person would have published, or would have investigated before publishing, the defamatory statement. St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) 390 U.S. 727, 731 [20 L.Ed.2d 262, 88 S.Ct. 1323]. The reckless disregard test demands that the evidence must “permit the conclusion that the defendant a......
  • Antitrust and the Constitution
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust Antitrust and the constitution
    • January 1, 2015
    ...matters is whether “the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [its] publication . . . .” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). 64 A Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust govern causes of action other than defamation, 29 so long as the gravamen is some “inju......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust Procedural issues
    • January 1, 2015
    ...(2d Cir. 1985), 153, 154, 159, 170 S.S.W., Inc. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 191 F.2d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1951), 183 St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968), 63 St. Bernard Hosp. v. Hosp. Servs., Inc., 618 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1980), 283 St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry 438 U.S. 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT