Neutral reportage

Last updated

Neutral reportage is a common law defense against libel and defamation lawsuits usually involving the media republishing unproven accusations about public figures. [1] It is a limited exception to the common law rule that one who repeats a defamatory statement is just as guilty as the first person who published it. [2]

Contents

Defendants using the defense can claim that they are not implying the offending statement is true but simply reporting, in a neutral manner, that the potentially libelous statements were made, even if they doubt the accuracy of the statement. For the defense to succeed, it is almost always required for the reporting to be unbiased and in the public interest. [3]

History

In U.S. defamation law it is traditional for a court to consider the publishing and re-publishing of defamatory statements indistinguishable on the grounds that the republished statements have potential to cause as much harm to a person as the original publication. The doctrine of neutral reportage was established on the basis that the press should not be liable for republishing allegations made by a responsible speaker about public figures providing it is done in a neutral manner and is newsworthy. [4]

Edwards v. National Audubon Society

The case of Edwards v. National Audubon Society in 1977 is largely recognised as the first major case in which the idea of neutral reporting was used. The case concerned the reporting of a dispute between the National Audubon Society and a group of scientists that it had accused of being paid to lie by pesticide companies regarding the effects of pesticides on birds. The New York Times, while attempting to report both sides of the dispute, was sued by several of the scientists. A federal appellate court recognised that the reporting was both neutral and in the public interest. [5]

United States law

The neutral reportage privilege has not been widely adopted by all states and courts. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel stated that "there is a great deal of inconsistency among state court decisions" [4] In 1981, during the case of McCall vs. Courier Journal, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the defense stating it had not been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in turn refused to review the case. [1] In 2004, Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that neither the Pennsylvania constitution nor the United States Constitution provided such a defense. These two states together with Michigan, New York and California have rejected the defense while Florida is among the few states that has accepted it. Whereas in Illinois one appellate court recognised the principle and another did not demonstrating the inconsistency of the defense even within the same state. [5] [6]

United Kingdom law

In the United Kingdom, the defense is often known as the 'Reynolds defence' after a 1994 case, where then Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds sued the Sunday Times over an article claiming he had misled parliament. The case was a landmark in British libel law after the House of Lords decided in 1997 to allow the media to plead the 'Reynolds defence' meaning they could print potential libel if they could prove that it is in the public interest and responsible. [7] According to the libel book Gatley on Libel and Slander it "extends at least to the attributed and neutral reporting of allegations and counter allegations by parties to a political dispute in which the public has a legitimate interest." [8]

Notable cases

While the validity of the defense is questioned, it has been used successfully in some cases while in others the defendants have failed to convince judges that they are protected by the defense.

Failures

Successes

Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune

In May 2003 the Salt Lake Tribune , of Salt Lake City, Utah, published an article entitled "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System" [17] documenting Salt Lake City resident Barbara Schwarz's extensive pursuit of FOIA records. [17]

Schwarz sued the Tribune, claiming that its use of “yellow journalism” resulted in “malicious defamation”, “emotional abuse” and was accomplished by deceiving her into giving an interview, unauthorized use of her photo, violation of privacy, refusing to print a correction or letter to the editor, in addition to theft of approximately 100 photos and negatives. [18]

In its ruling the three member court stated: "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them.” [18] Judge James Z. Davis further wrote that the Tribune article was protected by "the neutral reportage privilege because it contains 'accurate and disinterested reporting' of the information contained in the record." [19] Her suit was dismissed and her appeals denied. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included in addition to allegations of facts, to what extent the alleged facts is a valid defence.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Libel case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases. It is referred to as honest comment in some countries.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that rejected the argument that a separate opinion privilege existed against libel. It was seen by legal commentators as the end of an era that began with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and continued with Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., in which the court clarified and greatly expanded the range and scope of what could be said in the press without fear of litigation.

<i>Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd</i> Leading English defamation case of 1999

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.

The defence of qualified privilege permits a person in a position of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else. In New Zealand and Ontario, for instance, cases of political libel are inhibited by permitting open discussion of an allegation or rumor, if conducted responsibly and with due care for the privacy of the person whose reputation would be affected. This privilege generally does not extend to repetition of discredited statements, malice, or comments made out of process or out of order in the organization or institution in which the position of authority is held.

Sir David Eady is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. As a judge, he is known for having presided over many high-profile libel and privacy cases.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian defamation law</span> Commonwealth jurisdictions

Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues.

Adam v. Ward was a 1919 House of Lords case concerning the legal theories of qualified privilege and that of the constitutional defence. Qualified privilege is "a defence to the publication of defamatory statements which may be false but which warrant protection from an action in defamation because the occasion on which they are made demands that they be made freely with the prospect of litigation removed." The constitutional defence varies from country to country in that it is based on the constitutional law of said country.

<i>Grant v Torstar Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, 2009 SCC 61, is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided the party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. This decision recognizes a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

Astley v Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651, is a leading defamation decision released by Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case was publicized for the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction ordered against the defendant.

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation Act 2013</span> United Kingdom law reforming defamation law in England & Wales

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which reformed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.

<i>Bent Coppers</i> Non-fiction book by Graeme McLagan

Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's Battle Against Police Corruption is a non-fiction book by award-winning British journalist Graeme McLagan. First published in the United Kingdom in 2003 by Orion Publishing Group, the book examines police corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service and South Eastern Regional Crime Squad—with particular focus on the 1990s and early 2000s—and the establishment and activities of the force's anti-corruption "Ghost Squad". Its publication led to a 4-year legal case resulting in a landmark ruling in English defamation law.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statements made by a Senator in newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

References

  1. 1 2 Creech, Kenneth C. (2007). Electronic media law and regulation. Elsevier. p. 326. ISBN   978-0-240-80841-3.
  2. ↑ McCraw, David (1991). "The right to republish libel: Neutral reportage and the reasonable reader". Akron Law Review. 25: 335. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  3. 1 2 Bowles, Dorothy A. (March 1989). "Neutral Reportage as a Defence Against Republishing Libel". Communications and the Law. 11 (March 1989): 3–17. Retrieved 2008-08-08.
  4. 1 2 Youm, Kyu Ho (2006). "Recent Rulings Weaken Neutral Reportage Defense". Newspaper Research Journal. University of Memphis. 27 (Winter 2006): 58–73. doi:10.1177/073953290602700106. S2CID   156115556.
  5. 1 2 Overbeck, Wayne (2006). Major Principles of Media Law. Cengage Learning. pp. 136, 137. ISBN   978-0-495-05030-8.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "Neutral Report Privilege". Citizen Media Law Project. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2009-02-23.
  7. ↑ Day, Julia (2005-02-03). "'Reynolds defence' in new libel law test". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  8. 1 2 McNae, James; Tom Welsh; Walter Greenwood; David Banks; Leonard Cyril (2007). McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. Oxford University Press. p. 282. ISBN   978-0-19-921154-8.
  9. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear 'neutral reportage,' Virginia police records cases". Archived from the original on 2006-12-01. Retrieved 2007-10-17.
  10. ↑ "California Supreme Court Survey: vi. Libel and Slander". Pepperdine Law Review. 26: 1083. 1998–1999.
  11. ↑ Forbes, Edgar (2004-12-03). "Bad news for journalists or just for the Telegraph?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  12. ↑ "Galloway wins Saddam libel case". BBC. 2004-12-02. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  13. ↑ Gable, Sonia (August 2007). "BNP activists lose appeal in politically motivated libel case". Searchlight Magazine. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  14. ↑ Global Relief Foundation vs. New York Times Company, Associated Press, American Broadcasting Companies, Incorporated, et al.(United States Court of AppealsSep 22, 2003), Text .
  15. ↑ Donnellan, Jonathan; Justin Peacock (2005). "Truth and Consequences: First amendment protection for accurate reporting on government investigations". New York Law School Law Review. 50: 237. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
  16. ↑ Gerstein, Josh (2004-12-02). "Newspapers Cleared in Libel Case". New York Sun. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  17. 1 2 Smith, Christopher (May 13, 2003). "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2007-12-24..
  18. 1 2 3 Hanby, Christopher Utah appeals court backs reporting privilege Archived 2008-02-03 at the Wayback Machine First Amendment Center, 06.14.05.
  19. ↑ 'Neutral reportage' privilege recognized Archived 2007-12-03 at the Wayback Machine 2005 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.