## Facts

- Wallace “Wally” Butts, former University of Georgia head football coach and then athletic director, was alleged to be a prominent sports figure.
- _The Saturday Evening Post_, published by Curtis Publishing Co., ran an article alleging Butts conspired with Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to fix the 1962 Georgia–Alabama football game.
- The story relied mainly on an affidavit from George Burnett, who claimed he accidentally overheard a telephone call between Butts and Bryant.
- Butts denied the allegations and sued for libel in a federal diversity action seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Evidence at trial supported that Curtis:
  - Knew Burnett was on criminal probation and published without independent corroboration.
  - Failed to review Burnett’s notes, interview an available corroborating witness, review game films, or check whether Alabama changed its plans.
  - Assigned the story to a writer lacking football expertise and did not have an expert review the reporting.

- The jury awarded general and punitive damages (later reduced by remittitur).
- After _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_, Curtis sought a new trial; the trial court found the evidence supported reckless disregard for truth and denied relief; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the case together with _Associated Press v. Walker_.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment defamation standard of _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan_ applies to a plaintiff who is a “public figure” but not a public official.
2. If the standard applies, whether Curtis Publishing’s conduct met the constitutionally required showing of fault to sustain libel damages.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment for Butts.
- A majority agreed that public figures, like public officials, must prove publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth to recover for defamation.
- Applying that constitutional standard, the Court concluded Curtis’s publication practices reflected a reckless disregard for truth, supporting liability and the damages award.

## Legal Principles

- Public figures may not recover for defamation absent proof equivalent to _New York Times_ “actual malice”: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether the statement was false.
- A publisher’s “reckless disregard” may be shown by an extreme departure from responsible investigative and editorial practices, particularly where there is time to verify and no immediate deadline pressure.
- Recklessness is supported where a publisher relies on a highly questionable source while failing to take readily available corroborative steps and publishing serious accusations without adequate checking.

## Conclusion

The Court placed public figures within the First Amendment framework governing defamation claims by public officials and upheld a libel judgment where the publisher’s handling of a grave accusation reflected reckless disregard for truth demonstrated by major investigative omissions and substandard editorial practices.


Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)