▁changed ▁what ▁the ▁original ▁rev iewer ▁wrote ▁about ▁the ▁speak ers ▁in ▁his ▁pre - public ation ▁draft , ▁which ▁the ▁magazine ▁refused ▁to ▁do . ▁ ▁Lower ▁court ▁history ▁The ▁Massachusetts ▁district ▁court ▁had ▁heard ▁testim ony ▁from ▁an ▁author ▁of ▁the ▁article ▁that ▁the ▁instruments ▁heard ▁through ▁the ▁ 9 0 1 ' s ▁speak ers ▁t ended ▁to ▁w ander ▁" al ong ▁the ▁wall ," ▁rather ▁than ▁" about ▁the ▁room ," ▁as ▁had ▁been ▁stated ▁in ▁the ▁article ; ▁and ▁found ▁that ▁this ▁constit uted ▁a ▁publication ▁of ▁a ▁false ▁statement ▁with ▁the ▁knowledge ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁false . ▁It ▁had ▁found ▁Cons um ers ▁Union ▁li able ▁for ▁dam ages . ▁ ▁On ▁appeal , ▁B ose ▁had ▁argued ▁that ▁the ▁district ▁court ' s ▁find ings ▁of ▁fact ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁set ▁aside ▁by ▁the ▁appe als ▁court ▁under ▁Federal ▁Rule ▁of ▁Civil ▁Pro cedure ▁Rule ▁ 5 2 ( a ) ▁unless ▁the ▁find ings ▁were ▁" clear ly ▁err one ous ." ▁The ▁appe als ▁court , ▁however , ▁had ▁agreed ▁with ▁Cons um ers ▁Union ▁that ▁under ▁the ▁preced ent ▁set ▁by ▁New ▁York ▁Times ▁Co . ▁v . ▁S ull ivan ▁( 1 9 6 4 ), ▁the ▁appe als ▁court ▁had ▁to ▁review ▁the ▁entire ▁matter ▁de ▁nov o ▁in ▁order ▁to ▁determine ▁whether ▁the ▁false ▁fact ▁was ▁published ▁with ▁" actual ▁mal ice ." ▁As ▁B ose ▁had ▁not ▁presented ▁sufficient ▁evidence ▁of ▁actual ▁mal ice , ▁the ▁appe als