Ginzburg Et Al. v. Goldwater
Docket: 687
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; August 13, 1969; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Ralph Ginzburg et al. v. Barry M. Goldwater, following a libel suit initiated by Goldwater against Fact magazine and its authors after the publication of an issue suggesting he was mentally unfit for presidency. The trial jury found in favor of Goldwater, awarding him $1 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages against the defendants. On appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the jury's decision, affirming that the defendants received appropriate First Amendment protections under the 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. Justices Black and Douglas dissented, arguing that the First Amendment guarantees an unconditional right to publish opinions on public affairs, contending that the current legal standards do not sufficiently protect robust public debate. The Chief Justice recused himself from the case. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the dissenting opinion emphasizes the inadequacy of the legal protections for free speech and press against libel claims, particularly highlighting the substantial financial burdens such judgments impose. It argues that the requirement to prove 'malice' fails to shield the press from the emotional biases prevalent in local communities, suggesting that libel laws infringe upon First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The opinion stresses the necessity of an unconditional right to criticize public figures, especially presidential candidates, as vital for democratic discourse. It critiques the Court of Appeals' decision for potentially stifling political debate and warns that punitive damages in cases where no actual harm is demonstrated undermine the First Amendment. The dissent contends that punitive damages should not apply when no provable injury exists, advocating for the reversal of the Court of Appeals' ruling and asserting that the First Amendment unequivocally protects freedom of speech and press from government abridgment. The Chief Justice recused himself from this consideration.