|
High court
won't step into lawsuit against paper that reported on accusations
among politicians
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The Supreme Court refused to step into a lawsuit against
a newspaper on March 28, 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 after the Daily Local News in West Chester,
Pa., reported that a council member claimed they were homosexuals.
The newspaper reported that the councilman also had issued
a statement strongly implying that he considered the two officials
to be "queers and child molesters."
It
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 that allows the media
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 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," said
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press.
"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?"
On the Net:
Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ruling: http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-122-2003mo.pdf
|
