I like the decision. If politician A calls politician B a child molester (and its not supported by any evidence) I don't think the press should report that and if they do then they have libeled politician B. They can report that 'unsubstantiated allegations' have been made without actually specifying the allegations and achieve the same journalistic result.

I haven'tseen the actual decision, but on the whole I don't know how a lack of access to falsity violates the public's "right to know."

As long as a reasonable person standard is used, I am not sure I see the problem. It might have an impact on the media use of "anonymous" sources - might have prevented the CBS Rathergate episode, could cool some of the lefty media lathering. Am I way off here?

I don't know.

As long as the journo makes sure to report is as "Sen. X then accused Sen. Y of being a child molester" or in a similar fashion, leaving no doubt that we're talking about allegations, I don't really see why they shouldn't be allowed to quote the statement.

Yeah, what's wrong with an unambiguous quote? Otherwise, everytime somebody makes some revealingly idiotic statement about their opponent, we'd never hear it.

I'd be careful, Ace. Someday this ruling might apply to you.

Let's say, hypothetically of course, I asserted that HundredPercenter is a big, flaming homo because of this post in the Alan Keyes comment section?

Alright! Finally a man with hair on his chest.

Would you really want to be dragged into court for my purely hypothetical libel?

Ace,

This has always been the case with libel law. Media outlets (and even quasi-media like yourself) have a hugongous loophole, though (not a blanket exception, but almost as good).

It's called the First Amendment. Under NYT v. Sullivan, a public figure such as a politician or celebrity cannot recover damages from a media outlet for liable or slander unless the media outlet acted with "actual malice" in publishing the libel or slander. (slander is "published" by speaking at common law) .

The actual malice standard is hugely difficult to meet. Recall the Falwell/Hustler incident. No "actual malice" there (though I can't fathom how a court could find Hustler not to hate Falwell).

Thus, IMAO, not a big deal, this ruling.

and if a politician "stands on a stage full of reporters screaming that his political enemies are "liars," "queers" and "child molesters," " the truth is the ultimate defense to a slander suit.

I don't think a paper should be liable for damages for reporting what someone said about someone else. However, the paper hasn't been found liable yet. According to the article, the case against the paper hasn't even been tried.

To say, "I think news outlets should be immune because if they are sued, the decision in that suit might be wrong." seems a little much to me. Let the case go through. If it ends up that the case comes out against the paper (assuming that the paper indicated that the libelous statements were made by a specific person and not the paper), THEN complain. I'll be right there with you. But I'm not comfortable handing out immunities because a future case MIGHT turn out bad.

Good clarification by hobgoblin. The decision only restored politician B's right to name the newspaper as a defendent in the actual libel suit. Proving the libel is an entirely different matter. Still, I can't help but think that if news organizations don't get blanket protection they will be a little more careful with the 'when did you stop beating your wife' quotes they love to publish.

Aren't "professional" journalists and opinion writers subject to a rigorous "editor review process?"

And for that matter, didn't they learn about how to avoid flirting with libel in J School?

/sarcasm off

My gut reaction (and yes, I can see the other side, as well) is that anything that encourages journalists to fact check they ownselves instead of printing a correction three days later, just might be a good thing.

another question to ask yourselves is why a newspaper should get more 1st amendment protections than a real flesh and blood citizen.

If a person is liable to be sued for libel or slander, why shouldn't a newspaper be?

Yep - this is a tough call. My - uh - brain says that the paper was just "reporting". My heart says "Good! The media should not be given carte blanche, especially since they already take it".

{Bought some T's, Ace! I'm in a state of anticipatory delight already!}

Sir,

I wonder if this would allow President Bush to sue CBS/Rather for their unsubstanciated libel, allow the US military/DoD to sue Eason Jordan/CNN for their unsubstantiated slander regarding their targeting of journalists or allow the RNC to sue ABC for their improper promulagation of the "Schaivo Talking Point Memo" and libel of Republican senators? While I realize the importance of free speech, the MSM has abused their privilege in service of their Left Agenda for decades without reprecussions. It would be nice to see the MSM held accountable for their blatent partisanship and be forced to be an honest broker of unbiased information (their purported mission) as opposed to acting as an integral arm of the DNC, disseminating whichever tin-hat conspiracy theory which happens to be in vogue in the "Reality Based World"/DU.

Sincerely,

rcl

If Fred Neff levels unsavory charges against Congressman Rotomondate, the media organ has two choices:
1) if the charges seem reasonable, investigate them further so that the media organ has something more than hearsay to back them up; or
2) if the charges don't seem reasonable, simply say, "Mr. Neff leveled serious charges against the Congressman, that this institution cannot verify."

Of course, this would require reporters to do some actual work, as opposed to simply re-writing press releases or copying down quotes.