
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. Significance: The ruling in this case reaffirmed freedom of the press. The Supreme Court determined Metromedia was not guilty of libel according to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. This verdict allowed the press "breathing space" in their pursuit of the truth. George Rosenbloom was a magazine and book distributor who sold nudist magazines. Philadelphia police arrested him and some of his employees on obscenity charges October 1, 1963, after collecting materials from his news stands to use as evidence. A Philadelphia radio station reported this information without using the word "alleged" when referring to the materials as obscene. Rosenbloom sought a Federal District Court injunction to stop police interference with his business and prevent more publicity about his arrest, on the grounds the materials he sold were not obscene. In reaction to the suit, the station broadcast statements referring to Rosenbloom as a "girlie-book peddler" who ran a "smut literature racket." His name was not used. After he was acquitted of criminal obscenity charges, Rosenbloom sued Metromedia . He contended descriptions of his material as "obscene" were false, and constituted libel per se. He also claimed the second set of broadcasts was false and defamatory. Key defenses for Metromedia were the station's timely correction of the first broadcast error and the fact that Rosenbloom's activities were of public interest. Another consideration was that the reports were "hot" news written under deadline pressure. Rosenbloom failed to prove actual malice on the part of Metromedia. Although lower courts ruled in favor of Rosenbloom, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the reversal in favor of Metromedia. Source: This information was taken from the Official Case Summary. It can be viewed on the Internet at http://laws.findlaw.com/US/403/29.html

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.

Significance: The ruling in this case reaffirmed freedom of the press. The Supreme Court determined Metromedia was not guilty of libel according to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard. This verdict allowed the press "breathing space" in their pursuit of the truth.

George Rosenbloom was a magazine and book distributor who sold nudist magazines. Philadelphia police arrested him and some of his employees on obscenity charges October 1, 1963, after collecting materials from his news stands to use as evidence. A Philadelphia radio station reported this information without using the word "alleged" when referring to the materials as obscene.

Rosenbloom sought a Federal District Court injunction to stop police interference with his business and prevent more publicity about his arrest, on the grounds the materials he sold were not obscene. In reaction to the suit, the station broadcast statements referring to Rosenbloom as a "girlie-book peddler" who ran a "smut literature racket." His name was not used.

After he was acquitted of criminal obscenity charges, Rosenbloom sued Metromedia . He contended descriptions of his material as "obscene" were false, and constituted libel per se. He also claimed the second set of broadcasts was false and defamatory.

Key defenses for Metromedia were the station's timely correction of the first broadcast error and the fact that Rosenbloom's activities were of public interest. Another consideration was that the reports were "hot" news written under deadline pressure. Rosenbloom failed to prove actual malice on the part of Metromedia.

Although lower courts ruled in favor of Rosenbloom, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the reversal in favor of Metromedia.

Source:

This information was taken from the Official Case Summary. It can be viewed on the Internet at http://laws.findlaw.com/US/403/29.html