Time, Inc. v. Firestone (1976)

Facts of Case:

Mary Firestone was married to Russel Firestone, heir to the Firestone tire company fortune. Mary filed for divorce, with her husband filing a counterclaim against for for “extreme cruelty and adultery.” Time published the results of the case in it’s magazine as well as a statement from the judge that said both were said to have had “extramarital escapades of the plaintiff were bizarre and of an amatory nature which would have made Dr. Freud’s hair curl.” Mary Firestone asked that Time retract what was published, Time refused, and she filed a libel suit against the magazine seeking $100,000 in damages. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Firestone. Time appealed on the basis that it’s first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated.

Legal Issue:

The issue was whether Time’s first and fourteenth amdendment rights were violated.

Time used a former supreme court case, The New York Times v. Sullivan, which protects media liability from defamation of a public figure as long as there is not knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

Decision:

The court upheld the ruling. According to another case, Gertz v. Robert Weltch, Inc,  “Respondent was not a “public figure,” since she did not occupy “[a role] of especial prominence in the affairs of society,” and had not been “thrust . . . to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

Analysis:

The court upheld the decision based on what status Mary Firestone held in society. They looked at at what made someone a public figure from another previous supreme court case. She did not meet the requirements to be a public figure according to the case, thus making the other case that protects media from defamatory suits not applicable.

Questions:

Who is a public figure?

Should public interest in something determine status as a public figure?

Do you think this has affected news coverage and its accuracy since the time of the ruling?