This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

There is a furious controversy that continues to rage around the insecticide DDT. Naturalists and environmentalist groups like Society (D) have vigorously opposed DDT because, in their view, use of the chemical endangers bird life. Proponents of the pesticide deny this charge and forcefully urge that, without DDT, millions of human beings will die of insect-carried diseases and starvation caused by the destruction of crops by insect pests. Naturalists have insinuated that many proponents of DDT are unduly influenced by the selfish interests of the pesticide industry. Outstanding advocates of DDT, such as Dr. J. Gordon Edwards (P), have characterized a ban on export of the insecticide as 'deliberately genocidal.' Accusations of scientific bad faith and mud-slinging have become almost commonplace on both sides. Arbib, a writer for Society(D), published a 'Foreword' to American Birds, an Audubon (D) publication. The Forward contained the following comment: We are well aware that segments of the pesticide industry and certain paid 'scientist-spokesmen' are citing Christmas Bird Count totals (and other data in AMERICAN BIRDS) as proving that the bird life of North America is thriving, and that many species are actually increasing despite the widespread and condemned use of DDT and other non-degradable hydrocarbon pesticides... This, quite obviously, is false and misleading, a distortion of the facts for the most self-serving of reasons. The truth is that many species high on the food chain, such as most bird-eating raptors and fish-eaters, are suffering serious declines in numbers as a direct result of pesticide contamination; there is now abundant evidence to prove this. In addition, with the constant diminution of natural habitat, especially salt- and freshwater marshes, it is self-evident that species frequenting these habitats are less common than formerly. The apparent increases in numbers of species and individuals on the Christmas Bird Counts have, in most cases, nothing to do with real population dynamics. They are the result of ever-increasing numbers of birders in the field, better access to the Count areas, better knowledge of where to find the birds within each area, and increasing sophistication in identification. With increased local coverage by the press of Christmas Bird Count activities, it is important that Count spokesmen reiterate the simple and truthful fact that what we are seeing is the result of not more birds, but more birders. Any time you hear a 'scientist' say the opposite, you are in the presence of someone who is being paid to lie, or is parroting something he knows little about. Arbib had no proof that anyone was a paid liar. He claimed he merely expressed his belief that many supporters of DDT use were spokesmen for the pesticide industry. New York Times nature reporter John Devlin immediately realized that the charges were a newsworthy development. Arbib was reluctant to identify any individuals as the people referred to in his article, but eventually promised to furnish the names of specific individuals whom he felt were justly subject to the Society's (D) charges. New York Times reporter Devlin immediately realized that the charges were a newsworthy development. Arbib was reluctant to identify any individuals as the people referred to in his article. He eventually promised to furnish the names of specific individuals whom he felt were justly subject to the Society's (D) charges. Roland Clement, the Audubon Society's Staff Biologist and Vice-President, strongly emphasized that he could not call anyone specifically a paid liar. He could identify those who had most persistently misused Bird Count data, despite the Society's efforts to point out their error. Clement provided a list of scientists whose distortion of the Audubon statistics seemed most egregious. Arbib gave the names to Devlin, saying, 'We don't have any knowledge of anyone being paid liars, and all we want to say is that they have been consistent misinterpreters of the information in American Birds.' Devlin and Arbib sharply disagreed at trial regarding the alleged qualification from Arbib. The list included the names of Ps - Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, Professor of Entomology at San Jose State College in California, Dr. Thomas M. Jukes, Professor of Medical Physics and Lecturer in Nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. Robert H. White-Stevens, Professor of Biology at The Rutgers University in New Jersey - as well as Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug and Dr. Donald Spencer, a lecturer of the National Agricultural Chemical Association. All of the accused were eminent scientists, though none were ornithologists. Devlin attempted to secure comments from each of the five. Three were contacted, and all categorically denied the charges. Two sent Devlin voluminous supporting materials setting forth their side of the DDT debate. None of this material responded directly to the Society's (D) criticism of the use of Bird Count data by these scholars; it dealt almost entirely with the general merits of the pesticide controversy. Devlin wrote the article, which is the sole ground for the libel judgment against the Times (D) and the principal basis for the judgment against Clement. Ps sued Ds. The judge ruled that Ps were public figures. The jury found for Ps, and Ds appealed. The judge ruled that the New York Times article and Clement's rebuttal letter of the same day were defamatory per se because they impugned the professional integrity of Ps. The jury was instructed that the Times (D) could be found guilty of actual malice if Devlin had serious doubts about the truth of the statement that Ps were paid liars, even if he did not have any doubt that he was reporting Arbib's allegations faithfully. The jury returned a verdict against Ds, but exonerated Arbib. It awarded $20,000 damages to Dr. Jukes and Dr. White-Stevens, respectively, and $21,000 to Dr. Edwards. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.