## Facts

- In the 1930s, nine Black youths were prosecuted in the nationally publicized Scottsboro rape cases; Victoria Price Street was the principal accuser and a central witness.
- Decades later, NBC broadcast a televised historical drama, “Judge Horton and the Scottsboro Boys,” focusing on Judge James Horton’s role in setting aside a guilty verdict.
- The dramatization portrayed Street negatively, implying she falsely accused the defendants and gave false testimony.
- Street sued NBC in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting (1) libel and (2) false-light invasion of privacy based on the allegedly false portrayal.
- NBC argued, among other defenses, that the broadcast concerned a matter of public interest, Street was a public figure, and the First Amendment required proof of actual malice; NBC also relied on judicial and historical sources used in developing the dramatization.

## Issues

1. Whether Street was a public figure with respect to the Scottsboro controversy, and whether that status persisted for later media dramatizations revisiting the same historical events.
2. Whether the First Amendment required Street to prove actual malice to recover for libel or false light arising from a dramatization about a matter of public concern.
3. Whether the trial record contained sufficient evidence of actual malice (or, if applicable, negligence) to permit liability.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the directed verdict for NBC.
- The court held the Scottsboro trials and Street’s role were matters of public controversy and continuing public interest.
- Street was a limited-purpose public figure regarding that controversy, and her public-figure status did not dissipate merely because decades had passed when the later broadcast addressed the same events.
- Because the challenged speech concerned a public issue and a public-figure plaintiff, Street was required to prove actual malice.
- The record did not support a finding that NBC knowingly falsified the portrayal or acted with reckless disregard for truth; NBC relied on judicial findings and historical sources.
- Street therefore could not recover on either her libel or false-light theory.

## Legal Principles

- A person who becomes a limited-purpose public figure in a major public controversy may remain a public figure for later speech revisiting the same historically significant events.
- When a public-figure plaintiff challenges speech about a matter of public concern, the First Amendment requires proof of actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
- “Reckless disregard” requires evidence the publisher actually entertained serious doubts about the truth of the publication.
- False-light invasion of privacy claims based on speech about matters of public interest are subject to the same First Amendment fault limits that govern defamation claims.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit treated retrospective dramatization of the Scottsboro trials as protected speech on an enduring public controversy, classified Street as a continuing limited-purpose public figure for that subject, and affirmed judgment for NBC because the evidence did not permit a finding of actual malice (or liability under any lesser fault standard).


Street v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 645 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1981)