Case brief: Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (1997)

[Prepared for COMM 4454- Media Law, Fall 2011]


Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, 128 F.3d 233 (4^th Cir. 1997)
            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FACTS: In 1993, James Perry brutally murdered Mildred Horn, her 8-year-old son Trevor, and Trevor’s in-home nurse Janice Saunders while acting as a professional hit man. He was hired by Mildred’s ex-husband Lawrence Horn to murder Horn's family so that Horn would receive the $2 million that his son had received in a court settlement for injuries by medical malpractice that had left him paralyzed for life.

It was found that Perry consulted the explicit advice found in two books published by Paladin Enterprises, Inc. to commit the murders: Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors ("Hit Man") and How to Make a Disposable Silencer, Vol. II ("Silencers"). Vivian Rice and the victims’ families filed wrongful death and survival actions against Paladin, arguing that the publishing company aided and abetted the triple murder by publishing the books which the murderer consulted. Paladin brought a motion for summary judgment (a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law) arguing that it could not be held liable for civil damages because it had a First Amendment right to publish the books. The case fell directly under federal jurisdiction because the parties were from different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $50,000. The court granted Paladin’s motion for a summary judgment, and found that First Amendment protection was not eliminated for Hit Man because it did not incite imminent lawless action, only advocated it.

LEGAL QUESTION: Should First Amendment protection for “Hit Man” bar Paladin Enterprises, Inc. from the appellant’s claim that the publisher aided and abetted the murders?

DECISION: (3-0, written by Judge Luttig, joined by Wilkins and Williams) The order of the lower court that granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee publishing company was reversed and remanded.

COURT’S RATIONALE: In bringing the motion for a summary judgment, the publishing company conceded that they intended for the book to be purchased and used by criminals. To the circuit court judges, this was sufficient evidence to establish that they aided and abetted in the murders. They claimed that Paladin assisted Perry by providing him with detailed factual instructions on how to prepare for, commit,  and cover up his murders, “instructions which themselves embody not so much as a hint of the theoretical advocacy of principles divorced from action that is the hallmark of protected speech.” They found that Paladin's assistance assumed the form of speech with little or no purpose beyond the unlawful one of facilitating murder. In these circumstances, they said that the First Amendment did not “erect the absolute bar to the imposition of civil liability” for the publisher.

DISSENTING OPINION: None

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This landmark case was the first time a book publisher was held liable for an act of violence committed by one of its readers. Paladin attorney Stephen Zansberg said it was “clearly an effort to extend the net of responsibility beyond those who take actions and break the law.” The court left the right to protection based on the First Amendment open for new interpretation. Judge Lettig’s written opinion was arguably quite emotional, and other companies feared that literature and films that described what could be considered dangerous activities may no longer be guaranteed First Amendment protection should another judge disagree with its content.