The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Dr. Luke Is a Public Figure for Purposes of His Libel Lawsuit Against Ke$ha
From Judge Garcia's majority opinion in Gottwald v. Sebert, decided today by New York's high court, though all the judges agreed on this point:
By 2014, when Gottwald initiated this defamation action, he was, by his own account, a celebrity—an acclaimed music producer who had achieved enormous success in a high-profile career. As self-described in the complaint, he "has written the most Number One songs of any songwriter ever" and "was named by Billboard as one of the top ten producers of the decade in 2009." Gottwald's engagement with the media was "obviously designed to project his name and personality" before a wide audience to establish his reputation in this field. He purposefully sought media attention for himself, his businesses, and for the artists he represented, including Sebert, to advance those business interests. He had been featured in various publications, as well as on radio and television, highlighting the nature of his relationships with those artists and his development of their talent and careers.
Sebert alleged that, shortly after establishing a professional relationship as her producer, Gottwald sexually assaulted her. Therefore, Gottwald is appropriately considered a limited-purpose public figure, and as a result he must prove that Sebert's allegedly defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
To quote Judge Rivera's dissent, which agrees with the majority on this point,
Respondents are Lukasz Gottwald, known professionally as "Dr. Luke," and his two affiliated companies. The moniker identifies him as the music producer of several pop hits which have made him both a well-known and well-fixed personality—and not just within the music industry. For years he has actively promoted his success in the media, having appeared on a major television network and having been the subject of major stories in print and digital publications with extensive readership. By any account, his public relations agents have done a masterful job.
The court reversed the intermediate appellate court's 3-2 decision to the contrary. My Amicus Brief Clinic students Rachel Levin, Avi Oved, and Aaron Schroeder and I—with the help of our local counsel Eileen Monaghan DeLucia (many thanks to her, and to Scott & Cyan Banister, for their continuing support of the Clinic)—filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and various media organizations, arguing for the position that the high court just took. The court's decision also contains various other important holdings (which our brief didn't deal with); I hope to blog about them shortly.
Anton Metlitsky (O'Melveny & Myers) represents Sebert.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems correct. As someone who occasionally follows the music industry, I knew exactly who Dr. Luke was prior to the lawsuit, and I am not exactly "in the know."
Someone who courts (successfully) celebrity cannot claims that they are a private individual when it comes to defamation claims.
Lots of the opinion seems to be about litigation privilege and the NY anti-SLAPP statute.
They say the plaintiff is a public figure, but I don’t see the relevance if the defendant accused him of rape – if the claim is false, I suppose a jury would infer actual malice. As to the charge of rape against some third party, I guess the actual malice issue would be more relevant.
“He purposefully sought media attention for himself”
I hope the U. S. Supreme Court gets rid of this short-skirt doctrine, aka the Sullivan precedent.
(Of course, I have no idea whether the rape accusation(s) are true.)
The underlying rationale of New York Times v. Sullivan was that zealous media coverage of government officials is so important to democracy that we simply must tolerate the occasional falsehood.
Even if one accepts that rationale, how the hell did we get from “public official” to “public figure”? It does not follow that since overzealousness is excused in the coverage of Presidents and congressmen, it must also be excused in the coverage of famous actors and musicians. We essentially have a rule that says you can be defamed with impunity – if you’re famous enough. I don’t see such a rule as remotely beneficial to society, much less as one commanded by the Constitution.
Well, how we got there is pretty simple. First, there was AP v. Walker. Then there was Gertz v. Welch. But that was 50 years ago.
I think Sullivan has some merit, but limited to something closer to its original politically-focused context. I don’t think that every time someone gets some public attention about something, any accusations made about anything should get heightened protection.
That said, because the accuser herself is being sued, negligence is probably irrelevant, and hence the standard probably doesn’t really matter. It is probably simply a question of who the jury believes. Either it could be reasonable to characterize the plaintiff’s conduct as a sexual assault, in which case the defendant wins, or it is not, in which case the plaintiff wins.
Sullivan is a terrible thing for the media. It makes them sloppy. Sloppiness leads to lack of trust, lack of trust leads to less revenue, less revenue leads to less staff, which leads to more sloppiness, which leads to...
Sullivan protecting regular people is just a red herring, Almost no public figures are going to waste time on suing randos. Its not cost effective and leads to the Streisand effect. Ask former congressman Nunes. You can protect randos with anti-Slapp type legislation in any event.
I'd like to see a single standard, whether someone is a celebrity or not.
I have to admit, I am genuinely confused by the cognitive dissonance expressed by many so-called conservatives when it comes to free speech in the United States.
Sullivan and its progeny has, arguably, been among the most speech-protective decisions we have had, allowing robust discourse without the chilling thread of lawsuits; it is what protects normal private citizens in expressing their opinions about "public figures."
Seriously, it's all over the place. On the one hand, it's constant caterwauling about "Meh First Amendment Rights!" (usually when there is no state action), on the other hand, it is the incessant refrain to get rid of all those decisions that have allowed greater discourse, from legal decisions (Sullivan, et al) to statutory (Section 230).
It's almost like there is no coherent philosophy, but just sound and noise, signifying nothing. Oh wait, it's not like that ... it is that. 🙂
Who cares, if the right-wing outlets you mention publish injurious and false reports why not make them pay?
And if the legacy media is ultra-cautious about making accusations (as it was in the Covington case, for instance), then it has nothing to fear from Sullivan being overruled.
Loser pays would be a good way to discourage people suing over true reports.
The question to me isn't what celebrities deserve in the cosmic sense, it's what the *public* deserves.
Independently of Sullivan, we've already established a broad scope for freedom of opinion - even the "opinion" that someone is a racist doesn't seem to be actionable.
Also, the Supreme Court could take a careful look at whether it's too easy to prove damages. If there's no reputational injury, maybe the Court can say no harm, no foul.
In this scenario, a random guy would have more protection talking smack about celebrities than some guy (or newspaper) with a huge following which takes him seriously.
People like to talk about their neighbors too, but that's hardly a compelling reason to allow defamation of one's neighbors, and certainly not a Constitutional reason. NYT v. Sullivan overturned 200 years of defamation law. People did manage to talk about famous people before 1964.
It makes me think of Libeled Lady, an enjoyable 1936 screwball comedy. Spencer Tracy plays a newspaper editor who is being sued by a socialite (Myrna Loy) for the hefty sum of $50,000 for falsely implying that she had broken up a famous society couple. He hires a playboy (William Powell) to quickly sham-marry his own girlfriend (Jean Harlow), then get Loy to fall for him, thereby proving that she really is a homewrecker. And hilarity ensues.
The pre-Sullivan rule was "publish at peril". Newspapers managed to navigate it.
There's a class of people whose "power" derives from their popularity, and reputation for expertise and goodness. Contrary to the bromide that no publicity is bad publicity, these "powerful" people can be brought low by serious accusations.
Maybe so, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
The press covered the sexual hijinks of the powerful in Britain's Profumo scandal, while the U. S. press suppressed equally-salacious information about President McDreamy (Kennedy not Obama).
Well, I guess it depends on what you value more in journalism: accuracy or speed? A record of accuracy creates trustworthiness, and journalists seem to be at historic lows for trustworthiness these days. Of course, there are a host reasons for that far beyond lax libel laws.
"Well, I guess it depends on what you value more in journalism: accuracy or speed?"
Yeah, this is about more than just journalists. Litigation is a hammer that people can use to silence others. Just like the saying "You can beat the charge, but you can't beat the ride," it's also true that you might be right on the merits, but you can't avoid ruinous attorney's fees.
Sullivan (and its progeny) are what protect not just journalists, but also the randos who can't help themselves but to open their mouths to change feet. Now, given the general level of discourse I've been seeing (especially here), maybe that's not always a great thing. But I am still shocked that the people who are (generally) the most in favor of its repeal are also the most likely to be spouting off defamatory and untrue statements about everyone.
Jus' sayin'.
Queen, I usually agree with you, but not this time. If you're concerned about protecting the public, doesn't the public suffer enormously from disinformation, especially in the public sphere? How does the public benefit from being told that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop, or that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, or that President Obama was born in Kenya, or that 9/11 was in inside job, or that vaccines cause autism? How would the public suffer if the cost of promoting these lies were to rise? Doesn't the public have an interest in public discourse being truthful?
I get that the First Amendment protects at least some dishonest speech, but I don't think lies are entitled to the same level of protection as truth is. "Barrack Obama was a terrible president" is protected opinion. "Barrack Obama was born in Kenya" is a demonstrably false statement of fact and should not be. And maybe people who make such wildly untrue claims ought to have a duty to check them out before they make them.
I hear what you're saying, but usually the response to this is that the best answer to bad speech is more speech (marketplace of ideas, etc.).
I think that what you might be arguing is that, with the difference in technology, and with the ability of mis- and disinformation to spread so widely and quickly, "things have changed." And maybe there is something to that. But I'd need a more persuasive argument (and a more targeted approach!) than simply getting rid of the bedrock protections that have served us so well.
Except that the actual cases in which more speech fixed bad speech are few and far between. What happens far more often is that bad speech is well-funded or mob-driven and simply drowns out the voices of reason. It's yet another example of beautiful libertarian theory that doesn't seem to work out in the real world. How much "more speech" would it have taken, for example, to put the white supremacist theorists out of business? You think a Klan mob is going to listen to sweet reason?
I agree with Margrave that there is little good reason to have a special category for public figures. Public figures are just as entitled to not have their reputations ruined by lies as non-public figures are. And even if a statement is false, I would allow a defense that it was reasonable for the speaker to believe it, and leave it up to a jury to decide. But if you're claiming that Hillary Clinton is running a pedophile ring, I think you need to do better than just say "I saw it on the internet".
This isn't a libertarian theory and far predates it as an ideology; instead, it is simply the age-old idea that, over time, the better ideas win.
You can't fix stupid. And there are certainly issues with the dissemination of false information (especially because of the algorithms that direct people to information that makes them angry ... sorry, engages them). But I haven't seen anything to make me think that, for example, stupid people have so dominated public discourse that the truth is unavailable or will not, in the long run, win.
Over time, the better ideas may or may not win, but if a blatant lie is destroying my life in the here and now, why should I have to wait years until the better ideas win out? It's essentially the same argument that if the Supreme Court had stayed out of civil rights, Jim Crow would eventually have ended on its own. Well, maybe it would have, but that's cold comfort to people being denied education, employment, housing and access to public accommodations right now. Why should they wait? Would you be willing to wait?
Well, first off if you are comparing this to Jim Crow, probably things have gone really off the rails for you. Just saying!
More importantly, if you read the Supreme Court (and other) opinions, the logic is pretty sound. Why do we allow this for public figures?
"Hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare. For the most part, those who attain this status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment."
Importantly, people who are public figures not only invite comment, but almost always also command the attention to rebut these types of comments; Hillary Clinton, for example, is perfectly able to command press conferences and interviews to rebut these charges (things not available to others).
Again, this doesn't protect knowingly false statements. It does make it really hard- and most public figures and/or matters of public concern don't bother.
But it's possible. Look what happened with Fox News. So, again, there is a reason for this. And I have yet to see a persuasive argument (and no, implying that protecting free speech is just like Jim Crow ... that ain't it) to the contrary.
I'm not saying defamation is like Jim Crow; I'm saying that forcing people to wait years for justice is like forcing people to wait years for justice. In both cases, victims are being told that the good guys will win eventually so they just have to be patient.
And yes, Hillary Clinton can call a press conference to deny that she killed Vince Foster. You seriously think that will make a difference to people inclined to believe the slander? In point of fact, political careers have been destroyed by defamatory claims. I'm interested in how the real world actually operates, not what theoretical remedies may be available.
Well, in the real world, a defamation lawsuit doesn't actually "solve" problems. You know that, right. Defamation lawsuit just provide monetary damages. What, do you think the crazies here have done a 180 on the BS about the election just because of the Fox News verdict? Because I got news for you- they haven't.
So yeah, I think that truthful information is how this gets solved. And public figures (like Clinton) are best able to combat the lies- and again, knowing falsehoods are not protected. So ... still not seeing your point.
And finally, while you might want more regulation of speech, whether through defamation law or otherwise, it's not going to change the BS that people believe. All the facts in the world, and all the jury verdicts, and (some) people will still believe in a flat earth, or lizard people, or pedophile pizza makers. The only difference is that public figures (those with money) will better be able to sue those without.
Relaxing the standard for defamation won't stop people from believing crazy things, but it will make it more expensive to spread blatant falsehoods. Making murder or burglary a crime hasn't completely eradicated murders or burglaries either, but it does make it more expensive to be a murderer or a burglar, and sometimes that's the best one can do. And the fact that there are still murders and burglaries is not a good reason to repeal laws against murder and burglary.
No policy is going to be a 100% fix, but offering victims some compensation while deterring further bad behavior is better than nothing.
Murder. Again, you're trying to analogize by bad example. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me ..."
Defamation is about reputational injury. Full stop. You're not being murdered. The whole point about this is not that it will completely stop people from talking (it won't), but that it exists for those times when there are completely injurious falsehoods that are being spread.
The reason for the heightened standard when it comes to public figures and matters of public concern (while still making people liable for KNOWING FALSEHOODS which seems to be your concern) is twofold; first, that it would chill a lot of legitimate speech. And you should know this- public figures generally have more resources, and the thread of litigation is often effective at keeping people silent. Moreover, we want people to speak out about public figures (and about matters of public concern) without fear of a ruinous lawsuit.
That it may be overprotective of speech is the price we pay for robust free speech. We would rather err on the side of protection than chilling legitimate discourse. I, for one, am happy with the decision. Why?
Because protection of free speech is a little different than deterring murder. I know- some of us find a salient difference in those two things, and this is difference is not just rooted in our common law and Constitution, but in the fabric of our society. I'm good with that.
I'm not analogizing defamation to murder; I'm analogizing one law that isn't 100% effective to another law that isn't 100% effective. If your argument is that we shouldn't have laws unless they are 100% effective, how does that not apply with equal force to laws against murder?
The fear of ruinous lawsuits can be fixed with loser pays (although I might require, given the special nature of defamation, a showing higher than merely that the jury didn't see it my way). You can take the position that free speech is so important that we simply won't care how much harm it causes; I can't agree. I see defamation as being unprotected speech for the same list of reasons extortion isn't protected speech.
There is a quite coherent way to reconcile what you are incapable of understanding:
1) People should be able to speak, even if the government/company/internet mob doesn't like it; and
2) People that lie and cause harm should be punished for it.
While you frequently attempt to reduce everything to a binary choice in fallacious attempts to attack conservatives, the issue is not binary.
Many on the right have watched the years of Leftists with bylines openly defaming right-wing figures, and getting away with it (or even getting rewarded, Pulitzer). There is a feeling that the laws on defamation have been twisted and need to be fixed.
This is no more in contradiction with support for 'free speech' as an ideal than opposing perjury or false advertising is.