Protecting Childhood: Rights,Social Goals and the First Amendment in the Context of the Child Online Protection Act

In Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, the Supreme Court of the United States reintroduced a subject matter test into libel law, holding that private figures defamed in the discussion of matters of private concern did not need to prove actual malice to collect punitive or presumed damages. The sweeping language of some of opinions, coupled with the Supreme Court's references to subject matter in subsequent cases, led to confusion over whether and how constitutional protections apply in private plaintiff-private issue cases. This article explores how lower federal and state appellate courts have interpreted Dun & Bradstreet and offers three alternate solutions to appropriately balance the First Amendment rights of defendants with the reputational interests of private plaintiffs in cases arising from the discussion of matters of private concern.