Sapulpa v. Gannett

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court 

Date Filed: Sept. 11, 2024

Background: In 2021, one of two announcers used a racist slur during a livestream broadcast of a high school girls basketball game. The Oklahoman published an online article about the incident and the community and school reaction. Based on information gathered by the reporter, an update to the original article identified Scott Sapulpa as the announcer who made the statement. Shortly thereafter, The Oklahoman learned that the individual who made the statement was not Sapulpa, but rather the other announcer, and the newspaper corrected the online article.

Sapulpa filed a defamation lawsuit against Gannett Co., Inc., publisher of The Oklahoman. The case eventually proceeded to trial, where the jury sided with Sapulpa, and awarded him $25 million in damages. Most of that award was for so-called punitive damages, which are available only to defamation plaintiffs who prove that the defendant published with “actual malice” — which means the defendant knew or strongly suspected that the statement was false before they published it but went ahead anyway. 

The actual malice standard, first established by the Supreme Court in 1964, requires a higher burden of proof for certain plaintiffs to prevail in a defamation lawsuit. While the standard is widely known to apply in litigation brought by public officials and public figures, it also applies to private plaintiffs seeking punitive damages for speech, like Sapulpa did here.

Gannett appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Gannett argued, among other things, that there was no evidence in the record that The Oklahoman’s journalists published Sapulpa’s name with actual malice. 

Our Position: The Reporters Committee, joined by 11 media organizations, filed this friend-of-the-court brief regarding the actual malice standard and why the verdict here was contrary to law. The brief argues that the Oklahoma Supreme Court should reverse the trial court’s judgment.

• The actual malice standard is a formidable one that must be satisfied for punitive damages to be awarded.

• Robust, independent appellate review in defamation litigation is both constitutionally required and a vital safeguard for speech, including journalism.

• The trial court record is devoid of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, and a failure to adhere to precedent on what constitutes clear and convincing evidence of actual malice would chill news reporting.

From the Brief: “[T]he ‘actual malice’ standard allows the press to inform the public without fear that unintended errors, inevitable in a free society, will result in ruinous civil liability. The consistent, faithful application of that standard is essential to the news media’s ability to perform its necessary role in a democratic society.”

Related: For more information about the actual malice standard, check out our explainer.