Case Summary: Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane

In 1984, the Supreme Court of Florida denied a rehearing to Miami Herald Publishing Co., who had petitioned after their appeal in the Third District Court. The question at hand was whether a plaintiff who was neither a public figure nor a public official needed to establish malice or reckless disregard as cause of action for a libel suit.

            The Miami Herald had falsely indicated that the respondent, Aurelio Ane, had been named (by the Monroe County Sheriff) as owner of a beer truck containing marijuana.

            The majority decision hinged on two cases. The first, Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, saw a ruling by a plurality of the US Supreme Court that expanded first amendment protection to all discussion of matters of public concern regardless of whether those involved were public figures or not. The second, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., rejected the Rosenbloom plurality view and found that there was a “legitimate state interest” in allowing individuals to be compensated for “harm inflicted on them by defamatory falsehoods”.

            Gertz having affirmed that states could decide their own standards of liability as long as liability required fault, the Florida Supreme Court turned to the Florida Constitution, which established for the state a concern for individual reputation. The court found no prior cases contrary to this without having other factors by which private individuals made themselves newsworthy.

            The ruling held that “fair comment” privilege was restricted to government or political officials and to public figures, and that expanding the privilege was an unnecessary protection for the media which would be “to the detriment of private citizens.”

            Two judges dissented, on the grounds that the media was of sufficient importance to the public interest that requiring them to defend unintentional errors beyond reckless disregard would be to the public’s detriment.