Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

1991-06-20

Headline: Court reverses and sends libel case back, ruling that fabricated quotations can be actionable only if they materially change meaning, letting a former archives director pursue his claim at trial.

Holding: The Court held that deliberate alteration of quoted words does not automatically prove actual malice unless the changes materially alter the meaning, and it reversed the lower court so the former archives director may seek a jury trial.

Real World Impact:

Lets plaintiffs seek trial when quoted words materially change meaning.
Press must be careful when placing reconstructed words in quotes.
Magazines and publishers may face liability on remand.

Topics: libel and defamation, journalism accuracy, fabricated quotations, public figures, First Amendment

Summary

Background

A former projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives (a trained scholar and analyst) sued an author who had written a long New Yorker article later published as a book. The author used lengthy passages in quotation marks that the plaintiff says were not verbatim from over 40 hours of taped interviews. The plaintiff claimed those quoted passages harmed his reputation and sought to survive the publishers’ motion for summary judgment.

Reasoning

The Court explained that quotation marks normally tell readers they are seeing a speaker’s exact words and that invented or altered quotations can injure reputation in two ways: by attributing false facts or by conveying a damaging attitude. But the Court rejected a rule that any alteration beyond fixing grammar automatically proves the reckless falsification required for a public-figure libel claim. Instead, the Court held that an altered quotation shows the necessary bad state of mind only if the change materially alters the meaning conveyed to a reasonable reader. Applying that rule, the Court found evidence that some quoted passages could have been deliberately or recklessly altered and therefore raised a jury question, so summary judgment was improper.

Real world impact

The decision lets this plaintiff proceed to trial on whether the quotations materially changed meaning and were published with knowledge or reckless disregard. It clarifies that journalists are protected for minor or nonmaterial edits, but that clearly misleading, materially different quotations can lead to liability. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion agreed in part but argued that deliberate misquotations alone should suffice to show malice and criticized the Court’s materiality test.