From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
501 U.S. 496, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447, 18 Med.L.Rptr. 2241 (1991)
Jeffrey Masson (plaintiff) was a psychoanalytic scholar and a professor of Sanskrit and Indian studies. Masson became the project director for the Sigmund Freud Archives in 1980. However, Masson shortly became disillusioned with Freudian psychology. After expressing his opinions of Freud publicly in 1981, Masson’s job at the Archives was terminated. Janet Malcolm, a writer for The New Yorker magazine, conducted a series of interviews with Masson. Malcolm used the interviews to produce an article for The New Yorker, which was later turned into a book and published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. (Knopf) (defendant). Malcolm’s portrayal of Masson was unflattering. Malcolm’s article included many long quotations attributed to Masson. Masson sued New Yorker Magazine, Inc. (New Yorker) (defendant) and Knopf for libel, claiming that all but one of Malcom’s quotations were fabricated. In 40 hours of taped interviews, no statements identical to the article’s quotations appear. Because Masson was a “public figure” for purposes of libel law, the defendants could be liable only if it published the false statements with actual malice. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the passages in question were either substantially true or one of a number of possible rational interpretations of a conversation or event. Masson appealed. Although the court of appeals assumed that Malcolm had deliberately altered the quotations, it held that the alterations could not rise to the level of actual malice, affirming the trial court. Masson appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 553,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 553,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.