Ocala Star-Banner Co. v. Damron

Background

A small daily newspaper printed a false story saying Leonard Damron, the mayor of Crystal River and a candidate for county tax assessor, had been charged with perjury in federal court. The article actually described his brother, not him. Damron lost the election two weeks later, sued for libel seeking large compensatory and punitive damages, and the trial judge directed a verdict for liability and sent only damages to the jury, which awarded $22,000. The newspaper moved for a new trial arguing the constitutional “actual malice” rule should apply, but Florida courts upheld the judgment without applying that rule.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Damron, as a mayor and candidate, was a “public official” who must meet the New York Times “actual malice” test. The Court explained that charges of criminal conduct against an official or candidate are relevant to fitness for office and therefore fall within the protection of the New York Times rule. The Court held that a public official cannot recover for a defamatory falsehood about fitness for office unless he proves the statement was made with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because the trial did not require that showing, the Court reversed and remanded.

Real world impact

The decision means public officials and candidates must meet a higher proof standard to win libel damages for statements about their fitness for office. Newspapers cannot be held liable for mistaken reporting about officials unless the official shows the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard. The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion warned that this rule will sometimes protect innocent mistakes, stressing that protecting discussion of public affairs sometimes requires shielding even incorrect reporting to avoid suppressing the truth.