Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Torts

501 U.S. 496 (1991)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationLibelFirst AmendmentActual Malicepublic figurefalse quotationsubstantial truth

Facts

Jeffrey Masson, a public figure, alleged that Janet Malcolm's nonfiction article and later book falsely used quotation marks to attribute defamatory statements to him that he had not made. The interviews between Masson and Malcolm were tape-recorded for more than 40 hours, and the challenged published quotations did not appear identically on those tapes. Malcolm asserted that some relevant conversations were unrecorded and that she took notes, while Masson denied making the complained-of statements. The parties agreed Masson was a public figure, so he had to show by clear and convincing evidence that respondents published defamatory falsehoods with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

Issue

When a public figure alleges that a writer knowingly used quotation marks to attribute words he did not speak, does any deliberate alteration of a quotation establish actual malice? More specifically, does the First Amendment permit liability only when the alteration materially changes the meaning conveyed by the statement?

Rule

For purposes of New York Times actual malice, a deliberate alteration of a plaintiff's words does not itself amount to knowledge of falsity unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. Minor inaccuracies are not actionable if the substance, gist, or sting of the statement remains the same, and quotations are judged by the ordinary defamation principle of substantial truth rather than by a special rule. A quotation cannot be insulated merely because it is a journalist's rational interpretation when a reasonable reader would understand it as a verbatim or nearly verbatim account.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nationally known mayor gives a recorded interview in Chicago to a nonfiction magazine. The article quotes him as saying, "I steer city contracts to my friends," but the recording shows he actually said, "People keep accusing me of steering contracts, but I follow the bidding rules."

If the mayor is a public figure and presents evidence the writer knew what the recording said, which is the strongest argument for defeating summary judgment on actual malice?

Explanation. A public figure must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity. In the quotation context, deliberate alteration alone is not enough; the key question is whether the alteration materially changes the meaning conveyed. Here, changing a denial into an admission plainly changes the gist and sting, so a jury could find falsity and actual malice.