Fear of Clowns

A few days ago, the Supreme Court turned down a First Amendment case which asked whether a newspaper has the privilege to report defamatory comments made by a politician as long as the charge is reported in a neutral manner.

The lawsuit was originally filed by a mayor of a Pennsylvania town against a city council member who made false charges against the mayor and another council member, including the suggestion that they were child molesters. The paper reporting the charge was also named as a defendant in the case. The councilman was ordered to pay $17K to both the slandered mayor and councilman. The case against the paper was sent by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court back to a lower court, reasoning was that there is no intrinsic privilege to neutrally report a slander.

After thinking about this a few days, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court was right not to hear the case and let the PA Court's decision stand. Although a paper may accurately report slanderous charges leveled by a politician, it is possible to do so in a way that is libelous itself.

Imagine a senate race in which one candidate alleges the other is a slumlord. A paper could soberly report, Sen. Smith's opponent said to be slumlord. The article could go on to report that Sen. Smith said that tenants in an apartment his challenger owns were dying of diseases due to the extreme and willful neglect of the apartment by his political opponent. This charge could be "neutrally" reported and leave the reader with the impression that Sen. Smith's challenger actually was a slumlord - after all, it would be quite easy for a paper to check the plausibility of the charges. Absent an indication that the paper found no evidence backing up Sen. Smith's charges, the article could read as though there was substance to the charges. But Sen. Smith's opponent might not even own apartments. The very reporting of the charges "neutrally" could itself constitute actual malice on the paper's part if the paper knew the charges to be untrue.

Similar to freedom of speech not covering a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, I believe this is an instance where freedom of the press ought not be absolute. It seems I'm at odds with some to the right and left - although Ogged does call attention to some comments left along the lines of my opinion. Similarly, a commenter in Captain's Quarter's comments makes the astute observation that the case before the SC had not yet been finally decided in a lower court.

Freedom of speech and of the press does not imply freedom to lie.

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 09:00:00 PM
permalink | email post: