## Facts

- Khalid Iqbal Khawar, a freelance photojournalist, was photographed near Senator Robert F. Kennedy shortly before Kennedy’s 1968 assassination.
- Khawar was never a suspect, did not publicize views about the assassination, and did not seek to affect public discussion about it.
- A 1988 book advanced a conspiracy theory and used the photograph to accuse the man shown near Kennedy of being the “real” assassin.
- In 1989, Globe International, Inc.’s tabloid republished the photograph with an arrow identifying Khawar as the purported assassin (while misnaming him), thereby repeating the book’s accusation.
- Following publication, Khawar and his family received threats; property was vandalized.
- Khawar sued for defamation; a jury found falsity and defamation, and found negligence and actual malice, awarding compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review on First Amendment limits on defamation liability for republication.

## Issues

1. Whether Khawar was a public figure (limited-purpose or involuntary) such that he had to prove actual malice to recover for defamation.
2. Whether a “neutral reportage” privilege protects a media defendant that republishes, with attribution, defamatory allegations about a private figure concerning a matter of public interest.
3. Whether the evidence supported findings of negligence and actual malice and sustained compensatory and punitive damages for the tabloid’s republication.

## Decision

- The court held Khawar was a private figure, not a public figure, in relation to the tabloid’s accusation.
- The court held California does not recognize a neutral reportage privilege for republication of libel concerning a private figure, and it did not decide whether such a privilege exists for public officials or public figures.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the jury’s negligence and actual-malice findings, including the republisher’s failure to pursue obvious means of verification despite reasons to doubt the accusation.
- The court rejected the argument that the trial court improperly characterized the publication as an “original libel” in a way that deprived the defendant of jury factfinding.
- The judgment for Khawar, including compensatory and punitive damages, was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Public-figure status requires pervasive fame or voluntary injection into a specific public controversy to influence its outcome; mere association with a newsworthy event or later attention by others does not make a person a public figure.
- California law provides no neutral reportage privilege shielding republication of defamatory falsehoods about a private figure, even when the republisher reports the accusation as coming from another source.
- Actual malice may be shown where there are obvious reasons to doubt the source’s reliability or accuracy and the republisher fails to consult obvious witnesses or readily available documentary sources that could confirm or refute the charge.
- A republisher may be liable for defamation when it repeats an extraordinary accusation against a private individual without reasonable investigation, supporting negligence, and, on an appropriate record, punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed defamation liability and damages against a tabloid that republished a false assassination accusation, holding the plaintiff was a private figure, rejecting neutral reportage for private-figure libel, and finding sufficient evidence of negligent publication and reckless disregard for truth.


Khawar v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 965 P.2d 696 (Cal. 1998)