Since the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the Supreme Court has struggled to reconcile the first amendment guarantee of free expression and the societal interest in protecting individual reputation in defamation cases. This Comment criticizes the Court's recent effort in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., in which the Court declined to clarify the standard of liability established in Gertz v. Robert Welch and instead based its decision on a distinction between matters of public and private concern rejected in Gertz. The Comment argues that this distinction is justified by neither precedent nor policy and proposes that Greenmoss should be repudiated in favor of the Gertz approach.
Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss: Cutting Away the Protective Mantle of Gertz,
37 Hastings L.J. 1171
Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol37/iss6/6