Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesstatutesummary judgmentharassment
plaintiffdefendantstatutesummary judgmentharassmentfreedom of speech

Related Cases

Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403, 14 L.R.A. 226, 27 Am.St.Rep. 47
View Case »
Integrated Direct Marketing, LLC v. May, 2016 Ark. 281, 495 S.W.3d 73
View Case »
Harb v. City of Bakersfield, 233 Cal.App.4th 606, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 59, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 877, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1001
View Case »
Carson v. Allied News Co., 529 F.2d 206
View Case »
Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., 21 Cal.4th 1181, 989 P.2d 121, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,615
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., 427 Mass. 129, 691 N.E.2d 925, 26 Media L. Rep. 1730

Facts

The defendants, Harvard Student Agencies, Inc. and St. Martin's Press, Inc., published a travel guide that included statements about the plaintiff's youth hostel, warning travelers against staying there due to ongoing sexual harassment lawsuits against the manager. The 1989 edition stated that women should not stay at the hostel and mentioned that the manager was being sued by three different women for sexual harassment. The 1990 edition reiterated this warning and advised travelers to check at the tourist office before considering a stay. The plaintiff filed a libel action after the defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming the statements were defamatory.

The defendant Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., prepares, and the codefendant St. Martin's Press, Inc., publishes annually a budget travel guide known as 'Let's Go: Egypt & Israel.' The 1989 edition stated, in reference to the plaintiff's youth hostel: 'Women should not stay here, nor should men who don't want to encourage harassment. The manager, Itzik, was being sued on sexual harassment charges by 3 different women during the summer of 1988.'

Issue

Whether the application of Massachusetts General Laws c. 231, § 92, which allows recovery for truthful defamatory statements made with malice, infringes on the defendants' First Amendment rights.

The report raises the question whether § 92 unconstitutionally infringes on the defendants' freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a private figure plaintiff must prove the falsity of a statement concerning a matter of public concern in order to recover damages for defamation, as established in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps.

General Laws c. 231, § 92, provides: 'The defendant in an action for writing or for publishing a libel may introduce in evidence the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as libelous; and the truth shall be a justification unless actual malice is proved.'

Analysis

The court determined that the statements made by the defendants were about a matter of public concern, specifically the existence of sexual harassment claims against the hostel owner. It concluded that the plaintiff, being a private figure, could not recover damages without proving that the statements were false. The court emphasized that the defendants, as publishers of a travel guide, qualified as media defendants, and thus the First Amendment protections applied to their truthful statements.

The judge here correctly decided that, because the plaintiff had not 'voluntarily inject[ed] himself' or become 'drawn into a particular public controversy,' he was a private figure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the defendants and ordering the entry of summary judgment for them, stating that the application of the libel statute in this case violated the First Amendment.

We reverse the order denying summary judgment and order the entry of summary judgment for the defendants.

Who won?

St. Martin's Press, Inc. and Harvard Student Agencies, Inc. prevailed because the court found that the statements made were truthful and concerned a matter of public concern, thus protected under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Judicial Court, Lynch, J., held that: (1) hostel owner was private figure; (2) statement concerned matter of public concern; (3) defendants were members of media; and (4) application of libel statute to case, offering owner opportunity to recover for truthful defamatory statement of public concern made with malice, violated First Amendment.

You must be