What was the outcome of the case Time Inc v. Hill?

Answer 1

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 US 374 (1967)

The First Amendment case resulted from a 1953 Life Magazine article about a book and play partially inspired by an actual event in which three escaped convicts held James Hill, his wife and five children hostage in their own home. The family was released unharmed 19 hours later, and the episode was widely reported in the press. Joseph Hays subsequently wrote a novel, The Depesperate Hours, about a fictional family of four who were held hostage in their home; however, the Hays' novel and play contained violence, whereas the Hills' experience had been nonviolent.

In interviews promoting his book, Hays said the fictionalized account was constructed from a combination of several real-life kidnappings, and was not intended to represent any particular event or family. He also stated the inspiration for writing the book arose from the Hills' experience.

Life Magazine wrote an article about a play adaptation of The Desperate Hours, which was to premier in Philadelphia, a city near the Hills' former home. Through a series of editorial missteps, the Life article mistakenly claimed the play was based on the Hills' ordeal.

James Hill and his wife sued Time, Inc., Life's parent company, for deliberate misrepresentation and unauthorized use of the family's name to advance advertising objectives and increase the magazine's circulation, which violated a New York statute (where Time, Inc. was headquartered) restricting First Amendment protection. The family claimed Life knew Joseph Hays' work was fictional and sensationalized, but nevertheless published an article presenting the material as fact. Time, Inc. acknowledged that the article was in error, but claimed that the mistake was honest, not calculated. The lower courts awarded the Hills damages, and Time, Inc. appealed the decision.

The question before the Court involved the scope of liability and First Amendment protections involving freedom of the press arising from the article. In a 5-4 decision, the Warren Court reversed the lower court ruling, finding no cause of action against the magazine or its publisher.




Note: future President Richard Nixon represented Hill in the reargument