Also known as: matters of private concern · private concern matter · private concern · purely private concern
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Speech or statements that address only the discrete commercial or personal interests of the parties involved rather than issues of broader public importance or controversy. Such speech receives reduced First Amendment protection in defamation actions, allowing states to permit recovery of presumed and punitive damages without proof of actual malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Metro Bank circulates a written credit report to five subscribers stating that Maxwell Manufacturing faces imminent bankruptcy. The report reaches only those subscribers and concerns solely the company's internal finances. Maxwell Manufacturing sues for defamation and seeks presumed damages. Because the report addresses a matter of private concern, the First Amendment does not bar recovery of those damages without a showing of actual malice.
Musa Mensah operates a small ice plant serving only local customers. A state statute bars new entrants into the ice business without a certificate of public convenience. Mensah challenges the statute as applied to his private operation. The court treats ice supply as a matter of private concern and holds that the state may not constitutionally prohibit entry into that business.
Marco Marquez stands outside a private funeral with signs accusing the deceased's family of personal moral failings unrelated to any public issue. The signs reach only mourners and local passersby. The family sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the speech concerns a matter of private concern, the First Amendment does not shield the speaker from liability under state tort law.
Miguel Mendoza publishes a subscription-only blog post accusing Madison Meyers of selling counterfeit handbags at her neighborhood boutique. The post reaches 200 local subscribers and rests on a single unverified customer complaint. Meyers sues for defamation seeking presumed damages. The limited audience and narrow commercial focus establish a matter of private concern, so the First Amendment permits recovery without actual malice.
Miles Montgomery discloses the contents of a recorded telephone call between two private individuals discussing personal business dealings. The disclosure occurs on a local radio program with no connection to any public controversy. One participant sues for invasion of privacy. Because the conversation addressed a matter of private concern, the First Amendment does not bar the claim under state law.
Speech qualifies as a matter of private concern when its content, form, and context show it addresses only the discrete interests of the parties rather than broader public issues. A credit report distributed to a small group of subscribers about one company's financial condition is a classic example. Courts examine the limited audience and narrow subject matter to determine that the speech lacks public interest.
Supporting sources
…intended to mask an attack on Snyder over a private matter. Contrast Connick, supra , at 153 (finding public employee speech a matter of private concern when it was “no coincidence that [the speech] followed upon the heels of [a] transfer notice” affecting the employee). Snyder goes on to argue that Westboro’s speech should be afforded…
…strong enough to justify the application of § 2511(c) to disclosures of trade secrets or domestic gossip or other information of purely private concern
…purports to draw from Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 (1983), a test for distinguishing matters
…In sharp contrast to New York Times , Dun & Bradstreet involved not only a private-figure plaintiff, but also speech of
…of the right to engage in it. To supply one's self with water, electricity, gas, ice or any other article, is inherently a matter of private concern
When the statement addresses a matter of private concern, states may permit recovery of presumed and punitive damages without requiring proof of actual malice. The Gertz restrictions on such damages apply only to speech on matters of public concern. This rule gives states greater latitude to apply traditional common-law remedies in purely private disputes.
Supporting sources
A private plaintiff defamed about a matter of private concern need only prove that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement with at least negligence regarding its truth or falsity. Knowledge of falsity satisfies the standard but is not required. The actual-malice requirement does not apply because the speech does not implicate public concern.
Supporting sources
Limited circulation is a significant factor but is considered together with content and context. A post reaching only 200 local subscribers about one neighborhood store's business practices was held to be private concern. In contrast, speech tied to an ongoing public controversy may remain public even if distribution is modest.
Supporting sources