An Unforeseen Problem: How Gertz Failed to Account for Modern Media and What to Do Now

• Author: Delery H. Perret
• Position: Professor John Church and LSU Law Center Dean Thomas Galligan
• Pages: 542-574

Louisiana Law Review Louisiana Law Review

Volume 80

Number 2

Winter 2020

Article 14

4-22-2020

An Unforeseen Problem: How Gertz Failed to Account for Modern An Unforeseen Problem: How Gertz Failed to Account for Modern

Media and What to Do Now Media and What to Do Now

Delery H. Perret

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev

Part of the Law Commons

Repository Citation Repository Citation

Delery H. Perret,

An Unforeseen Problem: How Gertz Failed to Account for Modern Media and What to Do

Now

, 80 La. L. Rev. (2020)

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol80/iss2/14

This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital

Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital

Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.

341734-LSU_80-2_Text.indd 263341734-LSU_80-2_Text.indd 263 4/15/20 8:48 AM4/15/20 8:48 AM

An Unforeseen Problem: How Gertz Failed to Account

for Modern Media and What to Do Now

Delery H. Perret*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................. 542

I. A Police Commissioner, an Athletic Director,

and a Lawyer Allege Defamation . . ............................................ 545

A. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

and Actual Malice.................................................................. 545

B. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Its Progeny,

and Public Figure Classification............................................ 549

II. Using the Internet to Do Most Everything ................................... 552

A. Breadth and Depth of Information Available ........................ 553

B. Traditional Access to Media.................................................... 554

C. Bypassing the Media: Access to Following........................... 556

III. Fair Game for Eternity?................................................................ 557

IV. Nailing a Jellyfish to a Wall:

The 3-2 Actual Malice Test.......................................................... 559

A. Question 1: No Difficulty in Distinguishing

Among Defamation Plaintiffs................................................ 561

B. Question 2: Not All Public Figures Are

Created Equal......................................................................... 561

1. Factor 1: Traditional Notions of Access

in a Modern World .......................................................... 562

2. Factor 2: Access to Following......................................... 565

C. Question 3: The Role of the Historian

Defendant in the 3-2 Test ...................................................... 567

Copyright 2020, by DELERY H. PERRET.

* I cannot express my gratitude enough to the Louisiana Law Review Board

of Editors and my advisors, Professor John Church and LSU Law Center Dean

Thomas Galligan, for their continued support, editing, guidance, and

encouragement. This Comment is dedicated to my parents, Keith & Raquel Perret

and Amy Renn, my grandparents, Ken & Ellie Perret and Dan & Lori Renn, and all

of my loving aunts and uncles. Without each of them, my dreams of attending law

school and ultimately publishing this Comment would have never come true.

341734-LSU_80-2_Text.indd 264341734-LSU_80-2_Text.indd 264 4/15/20 8:48 AM4/15/20 8:48 AM

542 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 80

D. Applicability of the 3-2 Test.................................................. 570

Conclusion.................................................................................... 571

INTRODUCTION

“Wait a minute, that’s the guy from The Cosby Show,” a man

muttered, directing his wife’s attention to a middle-aged man bagging

groceries and donning a stained Trader Joe’s uniform shirt.1 The couple

recognized an older, heavier Geoffrey Owens, most well-known for

playing Elvin Tibideaux on The Cosby Show.2 After spending more than

15 years on The Cosby Show, Geoffrey’s fame wore off.3 Days after this

couple spotted Geoffrey at the grocery store, however, the Daily Mail

published an online article featuring pictures of Geoffrey in his work

clothes.4 The title exclaimed, “From Learning Lines to Serving the Long

Line!”5 Geoffrey’s life as a “has-been celebrity” disappeared in an instant.6

Although he currently leads the life of a private individual, if a reporter

published dishonest headlines, it is unlikely that Geoffrey would find relief

in court due to his history as a public figure.7 Geoffrey would face the

burden of proving that the alleged defamation was made with knowledge

of or reckless disregard for the truth—also known as actual malice—under

the United States Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in New York Times Co. v.

Sullivan.8

Courts still apply the defamation standard created in New York Times

Co. v. Sullivan9 and Gertz v. Robert Welch.10 Through these landmark

1. From Learning Lines to Serving the Long Line! The Cosby Show Star

Geoffrey Owens Is Spotted Working as a Cashier at Trader Joe’s in New Jersey,

DAILY MAIL (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6116

357/The-Cosby-star-Geoffrey-Owens-spotted-working-cashier-Trader-Joes-New

-Jersey.html [https://perma.cc/X7U2-NPX9].

2. Geoffrey was a cast member of The Cosby Show from 1985 to 1992. Id.

3. Id.

4. Id.

5. Id.

6. Erin Clements, Geoffrey Owens Reveals What His ‘Bizarre’ Year Taught

Him, TODAY (Dec. 7, 2018), https://www.today.com/popculture/geoffrey-owens-

reveals-what-bizarre-year-taught-him-t144697 [https://perma.cc/P35U-TUR7].

7. This is a hypothetical situation—Geoffrey was not actually subject to

defamation, nor did he pursue a lawsuit.

8. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

9. Id.

10. 418 U.S. 323 (1974).