## Facts

- Prominent scientists publicly supported continued use of DDT during a nationally visible controversy over its safety and environmental effects.
- The National Audubon Society, through officers and representatives, told a reporter that certain pro-DDT scientists were misrepresenting data and characterized them as “paid liars” for the pesticide industry.
- A New York Times reporter published an article recounting Audubon’s accusations and identifying the scientists, while also including the scientists’ denials and responses.
- The scientists sued the National Audubon Society, certain Audubon officials, The New York Times Company, and an Audubon vice president (Roland C. Clement) for libel, alleging the accusations were false and published with constitutional “actual malice.”
- A federal jury returned verdicts for the scientists and awarded damages against The New York Times and Clement; judgment was entered on the verdict.
- The New York Times Company and Clement appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment bars defamation liability for a newspaper that accurately and dispassionately reports newsworthy accusations made by a responsible, prominent organization about public figures involved in a public controversy, even if the accusations may be false.
2. Whether an individual organizational officer may be held liable for libel absent evidence that he authored, endorsed, or made the defamatory statement as published.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgments against The New York Times Company and Roland C. Clement and directed dismissal of the complaint as to them.
- The court held the Times was constitutionally protected for publishing an accurate, fair account of Audubon’s newsworthy charges and the scientists’ responses, without adopting the charges as its own.
- The court held the record lacked evidence that Clement made or endorsed the specific defamatory statement (“paid liars”) or otherwise satisfied constitutional requirements for liability.

## Legal Principles

- Public figures must prove “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) to recover for defamation arising from speech on matters of public concern.
- The First Amendment protects accurate and disinterested reporting of serious, newsworthy accusations made by a responsible and prominent organization about public figures in a public controversy, even where the publisher has doubts about the accusations’ truth, so long as the report does not espouse or endorse the charges.
- Liability for an individual associated with an organization requires evidence the individual personally made, adopted, or endorsed the defamatory statement with the constitutionally required fault; participation in background discussions or supplying names is insufficient without more.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the First Amendment protected The New York Times from defamation liability for accurately and evenhandedly reporting the National Audubon Society’s newsworthy accusations and the scientists’ denials in the DDT controversy, and it further ruled that an Audubon officer could not be held liable absent proof he made or endorsed the specific defamatory statement.


Edwards v. Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977)