Actual Malice: Twenty-Five Years after Times vs. Sullivan

Review
In a relatively brief (198 pages) but insightful study Hopkins has investigated the assets and liabilities of the `actual malice' rule as a standard in the law of libel. After reviewing the evolutionary process and and use of malice in libel law, the author analyzes the case of New York Times v. Sullivan in depth, explores the practical application of `actual malice,' and examines opinion critical of the rule. According to Hopkins, prior to 1964 `actual malice' took a variety of forms in statutory and common law practices in the 50 states and generally had a lower threshold of culpability than the Times standard, which forces the plaintiff in a libel suit to prove that offending material was knowingly false or was published with reckless disregard for the truth. Under common law the burden of proving actual malice could be met by a simple showing of ill will or hatred, a standard far less protective of the press than the Times rule, the benefits of which, contends the author, far outweigh its shortcomings. Ample protection is granted to public officials and public figures through the establishment of a burden of proof that can be met and understood by juries. Hopkins has successfully grappled with an issue of enormous complexity. . . . A useful basic reference for upper-division undergraduate and a good factual review for graduate students.Choice

Book Description
Published to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which changed the face of libel law, this book is the first in-depth examination of the actual malice rule constitutionalized in that decision. Hopkins offers a detailed evaluation of the current status of the rule and produces significant new information about the history and working of libel law. He argues that, contrary to much of the scholarly criticism and opinions expressed in the popular press, the actual malice rule is working and should be retained as an integral feature of libel law.

About the Author
W. WAT HOPKINS is Assistant Professor of communication studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.


Buy from Amazon     Compare Prices

Published to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which changed the face of libel law, this book is the first in-depth examination of the actual malice rule constitutionalized in that decision. Hopkins offers a detailed evaluation of the current status of the rule and produces significant new information about the history and working of libel law. He argues that, contrary to much of the scholarly criticism and opinions expressed in the popular press, the actual malice rule is working and should be retained as an integral feature of libel law.


Buy from Barnes & Noble     Compare Prices