Court Won’t Step Into Newspaper Lawsuit

"Supreme Court"

03/29/2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a lawsuit against a newspaper, 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 when the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pa., reported that a council member claimed they were homosexuals. The newspaper reported the councilman also had issued a statement strongly implying that he considered the two officials to be “queers and child molesters.”

The newspaper 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 which allows the press 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 Pennsylvania 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,” Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said.

“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?”