Khawar v. Globe Internat - 19 Cal. 4th 254, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178, 965 P.2d 696 (1998)

Rule:

The constitutional neutral reportage privilege applies only to publications of defamatory statements concerning public officials or public figures. The protections afforded the press when it reports on public officials and public figures do not shield it from liability when it publishes defamatory statements concerning private individuals.

Facts:

Plaintiff Khalid Iqbal Khawar, a photojournalist, who was photographed near United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy moments before the latter’s assassination, brought a defamation action against the tabloid newspaper that reported a book's false accusation that plaintiff was the assassin. The trial court determined as a matter of law that the article was not an accurate and neutral report of the statements and charges made in the book, and, with respect to the events in question, that plaintiff was a private and not a public figure. The trial court granted judgment for plaintiff on the jury's special verdicts. The Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Div. Seven, No. B084899, affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff was not a public figure, that California had not adopted a neutral reportage privilege for private figures, and that the evidence supported the trial court's findings of negligence and actual malice.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the defendant tabloid newspaper shielded by the neutral reportage privilege?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the state's highest court held that plaintiff was a private citizen, not an involuntary public figure, because plaintiff had not been thrust into the public spotlight by any action of his own. Therefore, defendant tabloid newspaper was not shielded by the neutral reportage privilege, and plaintiff was not required to prove that defendant acted with actual malice in republishing the defamatory information. However, the court held that the plaintiff was required to prove actual malice in order to retain $500,000 in punitive damages awarded by the jury. The court found that defendant acted with actual malice by failing to use readily available means to verify the accuracy of the book's information before republishing it. A fortiori, defendant was also negligent. The court affirmed the jury's total award of $1.175 million in favor of plaintiff.