Last week, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that journalists reporting the contents of a legal complaint can be subject to libel lawsuits. The court stipulated that the journalistic "fair report privilege" only applies when information reported comes from court decisions -- not from court pleadings filed by individual parties. One of the first cases to feel the impact of the ruling was right here in Baristaville. From RCFP.org:
Last week's ruling reversed a lower court decision dismissing a libel claim against The Record and The Glen Ridge Voice. Thomas John Salzano, whose father was the CEO of a bankrupt telecommunications firm called NorVergence, filed the lawsuit after the newspapers reported that the bankruptcy trustee in New Jersey had filed a complaint against him for allegedly misappropriating roughly $500,000 from NorVergence.
The lower court judge, ruling from the bench, dismissed the suit and said Salzano had not proven actual malice -- the standard that is applied in defamation claims involving public figures or matters of public concern.On appeal, the newspapers argued that the articles about Salzano should be protected by the fair report privilege. But the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, though recognizing that the defense would require dismissal of the claim, held that in this instance it was not applicable.
...Bruce Rosen, the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the media, said the decision was troubling because it makes it difficult for journalists to know exactly what type of documents will be covered by the fair report privilege and what types will subject them to libel litigation.
"It's had an immediate impact on my client, and I'm sure on other publications as well," Rosen said. "There's a quandary now about what journalists can cover aggressively when they are reporting about new complaints and even criminal indictments."
Jennifer Borg, in-house counsel for The Record, told The Associated Press that the decision would have a "chilling effect" on a newspaper's ability to gather news. Borg said The Record planned to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Comments (20)
Tom, could you please filter the UTF characters.
And then could you please filter out laserloon, who is a real, uh, "character?" (And so much more, to be sure.)
What a douche bag.
Mystery solved! Lasermikey is theproblem!
Unless they BOTH have a fixation on feminine hygene products, of course.
That's right, I am theproblem... and Batman, definitely Batman too... and the Joker.
But, laserloon, you'll never be Spartacus.
Wow, you are out of your mind today. Someone call the white coats. We have a live one.
But who is Mathilda?
"But who is Mathilda?"
Colonel Phil McCracken
From the little I know this is not consistant with past NJ rulings and goes against the generally accepted definition in most states. I hope it gets overturned. The law should err on the side of more openness not less.
So even though the newspaper won a favorable ruling in the lower court, it appealed for a ruling under the fair reporting privilege? Holy fish wrap!
Let me get this straight. If cathar files a frivolous libel suit against me, and Baristanet reports it in such a way that they really seem to enjoy my predicament, i can win a big damage award by proving malice? Oooh yeah! Me likey.
The paper claimed the fair reporting privilege but the claim was denied. Even though it didn't protect them, the plaintiff's claim was rejected because there was no evidence of malice.
But the newspapers want to be free to report any public document filed in a court case and they don't want to worry about whether documents filed in the court case have been reviewed and accepted by the judge, which seems to be the nuance the appellate court has used to deny the fair reporting privilege in this case, so they appealed. Again, I can't say for sure, but I believe that goes against precedent.
I violently agree with Pete, and considering the legal beagles New Jersey seems to wind up with on their appellate benches, this will probably be thrown out of a Federal courtroom at the speed of dark. If a document is published by any government branch, it should be able to be reported upon as long as the attribution is clear and the reporting uses the third-person "alleged" format.
The ruling is insane. It basically says that a court document, one that is PUBLIC, that anyone can request and view at any time, can't be quoted by a newspaper. Ridiculous. What next? Supreme Court rulings? Police reports? Payroll documents?
"So even though the newspaper won a favorable ruling in the lower court, it appealed for a ruling under the fair reporting privilege? Holy fish wrap!"
It doesn't say the newspaper appealed. It just said "on appeal, the newspapers argued..." The plaintiff is the one who appealed.
A frivolous law suit would only match my dismissive opinion of you in general, walleroo. And also of this site's commitment to "news gathering," I probably should add.
I think, all the way around, though, "malice" would it no way need proving with regard to Baristanet.
It's practically a stipulation.
It would be really fun (and I know we'd get very interesting stories too) if Baristanet had a guest editor of the day.
I nominate Cathar, Jerseygurl (my second favorite poster after Cathar), Mrs. Martta, MellonBrush, Right of Center, Lasermike (of course!), Walleroo and all the regulars for a turn.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, DeborahPub. (But you will probably have to explain both the concept of editorial perspicacity and the idea of proofreading and copy editing in general to my favorite turkey, mikey.)
Shake your wattle, laserboy!
DeborahPub...that is an awesome idea! Happy Thanksgiving to all!