Question

The distinction between "libel per se" and "libel per quod" was minimized in the case of

a) Curtis Publishing v. Butts
b) Neiman-Marcus Co. v. Laitt,
c) New York Times Co. V. Sullivan
d) Gertz v. Welch

Answer 1

The distinction between libel per se and libel per quod in defamation law was minimized in the case of Curtis Publishing v. Butts.

Step-by-step explanation:

Libel per se and libel per quod are two categories of defamation law. Libel per se refers to statements that are inherently defamatory and do not require any additional explanation or interpretation to harm a person's reputation. Libel per quod, on the other hand, refers to statements that may not be defamatory on their face, but become defamatory when additional facts or context are added.

The case that minimized the distinction between "libel per se" and "libel per quod" was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court established the standard that public officials must prove that a statement is false and published with malicious intent to succeed in a libel suit.

This significantly raised the bar for public figures to claim defamation, thereby offering greater protection to the media against libel claims for their political speech.

In the case of Curtis Publishing v. Butts, the distinction between libel per se and libel per quod was minimized. The court held that news organizations may be held liable for printing allegations about public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.

Therefore answer is a) Curtis Publishing v. Butts.