University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 22 Article 15 Number 2 Fall, 1991 1991 Recent Developments: Masson v. New Yorker Magazine: Absent Material Change in Statement's Meaning, Deliberate Alteration of Speaker's Words by Author Not Actual Malice Ellen Poris Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Poris, Ellen (1991) "Recent Developments: Masson v. New Yorker Magazine: Absent Material Change in Statement's Meaning, Deliberate Alteration of Speaker's Words by Author Not Actual Malice," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 22 : No. 2 , Article 15. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol22/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Voters' Rights Act of 1965 as amended nity to elect representatives. [d. Chisom is also important as it repre­ in 1982. The Act in part states that, The Court referred to its analysis sents the Court's continuation of the [a] violation ... is established in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 liberal application of the test for find­ if, based on the totality of the (1973) and Whitcombv. Chavis, 403 ing a violation of the Voters' Rights circumstances, it is shown that U.S. 124 (1971) in identifying the Act of 1965. the political processes leading language from which Section 2 is to nomination or election in patterned. Chisom, 110 S. Ct. at - Daryl D. Jones the State or political subdivi­ 2365. In both of these cases, the Court sion are not equally open to found the opportunity to participate in Masson v. New Yorker Magazine: participation by members of a the political process inextricably con­ ABSENT MATERIAL CHANGE IN class of citizens ... in that its nected to the opportunity to elect rep­ STATEMENT'S MEANING, DE­ members have less opportu­ resentatives. [d. LIBERATE ALTERATION OF nity than other members of The Court opined that further sup­ SPEAKER'S WORDS BY AUTHOR the electorate to participate in port for their interpretation of "repre­ NOT ACTUAL MALICE. the political process and to sentatives" as including judicial elec­ In Masson v. New Yorker Maga­ elect 'representatives' of their tions was evidenced by Congress' zine, 111 S.Ct. 2419 (1991), the United choice. replacing the word " legislators" with States Supreme Court held that an Chisom, 111 S. Ct. at 2364 (quoting " representatives" when adopting the author's alteration of a speaker's state­ Voters' Rights Act of 1965, §2(b), as language of the Court in White v. ments did not amount to actual malice amended, 42 U .S.C.A. 1973). Regester. Chisom, 110S. Ct. at 2366. for defamation purposes unless such The Court then reviewed LULA C The Court reasoned that the substitu- an alteration resulted in a material and rejected the respondent's claim tion of" representatives" for" legisla- change in the statement's meaning. that Congress' use of the word" repre­ tors" indicates that Congress intended Thus, the Court rejected the argument sentatives" in Section 2(b) of the Vot­ the phrase to cover more than legisla- that any alteration of a speaker's words ers' Rights Act was evidence of con­ tive elections. [d. beyond those made for grammar or gressional intent to exclude judicial The Court next likened the inclu- syntax proved knowledge offalsity or elections from coverage. [d. at 2364. sion of sheriffs, prosecutors, state reckless disregard for the truth. The Court noted the LULAC court's treasurers, and other elected officials Plaintiff, Jeffrey Masson, claimed distinction of Section 2(b) providing chosen by popular elections as "repre- he was defamed by article author Janet two separate protections of minority sentatives" to judges who are chosen Malcolm when she used quotation voting rights. [d. by popular elections. [d. The Court marks to attribute to Masson com­ The Court reasoned that the LULA C determined that the word" representa- ments he alleged he did not make. majority created two tests. One test tive" refers to someone who prevails Malcolm interviewed Masson, a noted was to be applied when the right of in a popular election, within which psychoanalyst and former Projects individuals to participate in the politi­ judicial elections exist. [d. Director of the Sigmund Freud Ar- cal process was frustrated, such as by Lastly, the Court found their in- chives, for an article she was writing time and location disincentives that terpretation of Section 2 consistent about him for The New Yorker maga­ result in depriving a class of people of with the broad remedial purpose of zine. Prior to the publication of the the opportunity to vote. [d. at 2365. ridding the country of racial discrimi- article, Masson expressed concern to The second part of the LULAC Sec­ nation in voting, upon which the Vot- the fact-checking department of the tion 2(b) test involved the denial of the ers' Rights Act of 1965 was enacted. magazine about a number of errors in voters' "opportunity to elect repre­ [d. at 2368. In applying the Voters' several passages. Despite these con­ sentatives of their choice. " [d. at 2364 Rights Act, the Court noted its policy cerns, the article appeared in the maga­ (quoting LULAC, 914 F.2d at 625.) statement in Allen v. State Board of zine as a two-part series in 1983, and In rejecting the dual reading of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969), pro- in 1984 Respondent, AlfredA. Knopf, Section 2(b), the Court reasoned that viding that the Act should be broadly Inc., published the entire series as a to substitute the word "or" for the read to combat discrimination. book. word " and" in interpreting Section 2 Chisom, 110 S. Ct. at 2368. Masson brought a libel action would destroy the plain meaning of The decision in Chisom is signifi­ against Malcolm, New Yorker Maga­ the sentence. [d. at 2365. The Court cant as it disallows race based voter zine, and Alfred Knopf, Inc. under determined that such a radical recon­ dilution or "gerrymandering" of elec­ California libel law in the United struction would be necessary to sepa­ toral districts in judicial elections States District Court for the Northern rate the opportunity to participate in through narrowly interpreting Section District of California. The parties the political process from the opportu- 2 of the Voters' Rights Act of 1965. agreed that Masson was a public fig- 22.2IThe Law Forum - 31 ure and as such, could sustain his proved falsity for defamation liability. jury to decide regarding falsity. The action for defamation onl y ifhe proved While the Court noted that in some Court held that absent a material change the defendants acted with actual mal­ sense any alteration of a quoted pas­ in the meaning of a speaker's state­ ice, that is with knowledge of falsity sage was false, the Court reasoned that ments, a deliberately-altered quota­ or reckless disregard for the truth. grammar and syntax often necessitate tion will not subject the author to The trial court granted the defendants' such alterations. Id. liability for defamation. motion for summary judgment, con­ The existence ofboth a speaker Justice White, concurring in part cluding that the alleged alterations and a reporter; the translation and dissenting in part, disagreed with were" substantially true" or were" ra­ between two media, speech the majority's holding that a deliber­ tional interpretations" of Malcolm's and the printed word; the ad­ ate alteration of a quotation did not conversations with Masson. Thus, dition of punctuation; and the rise to the level of falsity unless the the court found that the passages did practical necessity to edit and alteration was a material change in the not rise to the level of actual malice as make intelligible a speaker's meaning of the statement. Id. at 2437. required by New York TImesv. Sullivan, perhaps rambling comments, Justice White referred to New York 376 U.S. 254 (1964). The Court of all make it misleading to sug­ TImes v. Sullivan, which held that any Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, gest that a quotation will be known falsehood was sufficient proof and the Supreme Court granted certio­ reconstructed with complete of malice. Id. at 2438. Justice White rari, reversed and remanded. accuracy. observed that" [t]he falsehood, appar­ The Supreme Court began by re­ Id. at 2432. Thus, the Court refused to ently, must be substantial; the re­ viewing the six passages Masson al- recognize that any alteration, includ­ porter may lie a little, but not too 1eged were defamatory. The Court ing a deliberate alteration, beyond much." Id. found that while each of the six pas­ those made for grammar and syntax The court expanded the scope of sages purported to quote Masson's proved falsity unless such alteration protection for authors by allowing statements to Malcolm, Masson made resulted in a material change in the them to deliberately alter a speaker's no such identical statements in any of meaning the statement conveyed. Id. words and then place those words in the over 40 hours of taped interviews. at 2433. quotation marks. The Court in Masson Masson, 111 S. Ct. at 2425-28. The The Court next examined the issue stopped a bit' short and refused to Court then discussed the use of quota­ of whether an altered quotation was widen that expansion to include al­ tion marks, and explained that gener­ protected so long as it was a " rational tered quotations which were rational ally quotation marks are used to at­ interpretation" of the speaker's actual interpretations of the speaker's state­ tribute to a speaker words spoken by statement.