WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a lawsuit against a newspaper, leaving the media in Pennsylvania legally vulnerable when they report defamatory comments by public figures.
The case could chill news coverage of political campaigns where charges and countercharges are commonplace, First Amendment advocates say.
The justices' decision not to consider the case was a victory for the former mayor and current council president of Parkesburg, Pa., who sued when the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pa., reported that a council member claimed they were homosexuals. The newspaper reported the councilman also had issued a statement strongly implying that he considered the two officials to be "*****s and child molesters."
The newspaper quoted the council president as saying that if the councilman had made comments "as bizarre as that then I feel very sad for him and I hope he can get the help he needs."
At issue is the neutral reporting privilege which allows the press to convey a reputable public figure's defamatory comment as long as it is reported neutrally and accurately.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that no such privilege exists, though the privilege is recognized by some state and federal courts.
A jury ordered borough councilman William Glenn Sr. to pay $17,500 each in damages to council President James Norton III and Mayor Alan Wolfe for defamation. Norton is still council president; Wolfe no longer serves on the council; Glenn lost in a bid for re-election.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in October ordered a new trial to decide the liability of the newspaper's owner, publisher and the reporter who wrote the 1995 article.
Norton's lawyer, Geoffrey R. Johnson, said that even though the Pennsylvania case presented "an enticing issue," the U.S. Supreme Court is signaling that it believes the media's legal protections under its landmark 1964 libel decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, were sufficient.
Under the standard for "actual malice," the two local officials must show that the defamatory statements were published with reckless disregard for the truth.
Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for The Associated Press, said the news organization is disappointed the court appears not to be concerned about "the sure impact" the Pennsylvania ruling will have on the ability of the media to inform the public fully about public business.
"The fact that one public official was saying scurrilous things about another is information the public is entitled to," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said.
"Every political campaign is full of these kinds of issues," said Teri Henning, counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. "How do you now report on accusations made by one candidate or the other without really being concerned about liability?"
They printed "heresay" and very well could also be liable for printing information that came out of a private conversation.
Newspapers quote public officials all the time! Half of what we talk about here is in regards to what some idiot politician said.
If we couldn't open up a paper, and read what Bush said at this meeting, or what Kerry said at that function, because papers were afraid of being sued, where would that leave us?
As an editor myself, I'm torn on this one. As tardfarmer said, it IS hearsay. BUT, the general rule when considering what to print or not what to print is if you can attribute it as a direct quote from a source, it's safe to use it (although when the comments are potentially explosive, you better make darn sure you have proof it was said ... I carry a miniature recorder in my laptop bag, another in my Jeep, and have a recorder attached to my phone).
At the same time, I personally feel as though the Daily Local News stepped overboard. With the quote they made, they were simply providing a mouthpiece for a politician's propoganda against his opponent. Those comments from the councilman would have never made into print in my paper, and any reporter who would be so anxious to readily report such garbage would probably be assigned elsewhere.
Still, I don't think the newspaper should be sued for those comments. Though I don't agree with what they did, they didn't do anything legally wrong, so far as I can tell. I was surprised to see that this incident occurred in 1995. I didn't notice according to that article when the original trial took place? In Tennessee, unless I'm badly mistaken - and an attorney I am not - there is a six-month statute of limitations for lible matters.
In any event, the newspaper should be ashamed of themselves for printing such muck. Smaller newspapers, much more so than national newspapers, have a great responsibility. It is a responsibility we wrestle with every day. The newspaper can destroy a person's reputation. It isn't so bad on a national level, but on the "home town" level, where home town people are being discussed, putting out such information as someone's UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that someone is a "*****" or a child molester is very, very dangerous. By the very letter of the law, this lawsuit should've never held up. But, in all reality, $17,500 may be a small price to pay for their stupidity, IMHO.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Was this a direct quote said to the reporter knowing they were a reporter?
I'm not sure of the specifics. This was a public meeting. But the hardly matters now. A precident is set. This could be a tv news broadcast, showing video of what was said. The Penn. court ruling basically sets the standard that the news agancy, in reporting what was said, is as responsible for what was said as the person they're reporting on. That has never been the case. in the past, liable was only brought against the person who uttered the words. The fact that it was reported was always thought of as damages. Now, the reporting is potentially the crime.
Or think of it this way. The newspaper didn't say "so and so is a child molester". They said "so and so accused so and so of being a child molester." The paper told the truth!
I'm not sure of the specifics. This was a public meeting. But the hardly matters now. A precident is set.
No precedent was set yet, they still have to prove malice.
I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that if these comments were made that they were made in a public setting otherwise the paper would have tons of witnesses.
My gut feel is that this was a private conversation that was eavesdropped upon.
No precedent was set yet, they still have to prove malice.
Yes it has. The original jugde rules that the paper could not be named as a defendent. The Penn sup. Court ruled that they can. It doesn't matter if they're found guilty now.
The fear of lawsuits has harmed this country as much as actual lawsuits.
This is a frightening case
