Orlando Cepeda v. Cowles Magazines and Broadcasting, Inc., a Corporation

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , the Supreme Court in 1964 made a wide breach in what had previously been the law of libel. Twelve years earlier, in Beauharnais v. People of State of Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 , 72 S.Ct. 725 , 96 L.Ed. 919 , Justice Frankfurter had said, for the Court, “Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary either for us or for the State courts to consider the issues behind the phrase ‘clear and present danger.’ Certainly no one would contend that obscene speech, for example, may be punished only upon a showing of such circumstances. Libel, as we have seen, is in the same class.”

In New York Times, persons who libel-led public officials were granted a far-reaching immunity from civil actions. Three of the justices would have made that immunity complete and unconditional. In Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 , the Court applied the same immunity to criminal prosecutions for libel.

In 1964 this court in Cepeda v. Cowles Magazine etc., 9 Cir., 328 F.2d 869 , cert. den. 379 U.S. 844 , 85 S.Ct. 51 , 13 L.Ed.2d 50 ,…