Goldwater V. Ginzburg

''Goldwater v. Ginzburg'' was a 1969 United States court ruling on defamation.

Background

''Fact'' Magazine (''Fact'') was a corporation in New York. The defendant, Ralph Ginzburg, was the editor and publisher of ''Fact'', and Warren Boroson, a co-defendant in this case, was the managing editor of ''Fact''. The plaintiff, Barry Goldwater, was a United States Senator from Arizona and had been a 1964 presidential candidate. The defendants testified that they attended the July 1964 Republican National Convention and were not impressed with Senator Goldwater. Thus, they decided to warn the American people in an issue of their magazine (soon known as the "Goldwater issue"Goldwater v. Ginzburg 414 F.2d 324 (1969)
/ref> of ''Fact'') immediately after Goldwater's nomination on July 16.

The issue at hand was the article published by ''Fact'' titled "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater" in the September–October 1964 issue. The magazine polled psychiatrists and asked if Goldwater was psychologically fit to serve as president. ''Fact'' used the information given from the polls in the magazine article against Senator Goldwater. Senator Goldwater sued ''Fact'' Magazine, Inc., Ginzburg, and Boroson for "false, scandalous and defamatory statements referring to and concerning heplaintiff.”

Over 1,800 psychiatrists responded to the polls sent by Ginzburg."Goldwater v. Ginzburg." ''American Journal of Psychiatry'', 172(8), pp. 729–730
/ref> Although the responses were presented as the "professional opinions" of the psychiatrists, Walter Earl Barton, the medical director of the American Psychiatric Association, sent ''Fact'' a letter of protest which argued that a valid professional opinion required "the traditional (and confidential) doctor-patient relationship in which findings are based upon a thorough clinical examination" and warned that in the event the survey was published, the APA would "take all possible measures to disavow its validity". The APA ultimately issued the Goldwater rule in 1973, reaffirming medical privacy and forbidding commenting on a patient that any individual psychiatrist has not personally examined.

Court rulings

The court found that the evidence introduced at trial proved the defendants knew they were publishing defamatory statements and “were motivated by actual malice when they published the statements.” The court found the defendants had libeled Senator Goldwater based on the article ''Fact'' published. The plaintiff demanded $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages but Senator Goldwater was awarded $1 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were against all defendants but the punitive damages were split between the defendants. Ginzburg and Boroson were liable for $25,000 of the $75,000 and ''Fact'' Magazine, Inc. was liable for $50,000. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the award and the Supreme Court denied a petition for ''certiorari'' (review); Justice Black and Justice Douglas joined a dissenting opinion, rather unusual at the time (1970) on orders denying “cert.”414 F.2d 324, 337 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 US 1049, 90 S.Ct. 701, 24 L.Ed.2d 695. Boroson was the only defendant not to file an appeal after receiving the ruling.

References

1969 in United States case law
Barry Goldwater
United States defamation case law

{{US-case-law-stub