Question

After reviewing the evidence in Murphy v. Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded there was [term1] evidence that the Herald had reported the story with [term2].

a) substantial; bias.
b) insufficient; negligence.
c) credible; malice.
d) accurate; responsibility.

Answer 1

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found credible evidence of malice in the Murphy v. Boston Herald case. This reflects legal standards set by key cases like New York Times v. Sullivan and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts. Public figures must prove actual malice or reckless disregard in defamation cases.

Step-by-step explanation:

After reviewing the evidence in Murphy v. Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded there was credible evidence that the Herald had reported the story with malice. This conclusion aligns with the precedent set by the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, where the Supreme Court ruled that public figures must show that negative press statements were made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth to succeed in a defamation lawsuit.

Similarly, in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), news organizations were found liable when disseminating unchecked allegations about public figures, further evidencing how media outlets need to carefully vet their information or face serious legal repercussions.

In the realm of libel and slander cases involving public figures, actual malice or reckless disregard must be proven, as simply showing inaccurate statements is not sufficient for a public figure to win a defamation suit.