The requirement for convicting a media source of libel ought to be much lower.

[TimberValley]

In my opinion, gossip magazines and tabloids ought to be be able to be convicted of libel for publishing something that is verifiably false. Supposedly the reason they aren't is because "malicious intent" or something like that has to be demonstrated in order for there to be a conviction of libel. I think that requirement ought to be done away with.

I know that many if not most people know that such magazines or tabloids are rubbish, but I still feel that they should be able to be convicted of libel for everything they write or publish that can be proven false. Plus, some people do believe such magazines/tabloids, so the argument that "nobody believes them" doesn't work.


The notion that a media source can publish false things and get away with it just seems wrong.

[el_bryanto]

1. The tricky thing is proving they knew it wasn't true or that reasonable reporting should have

revealed that it wasn't true. If you set the bar to low - well, people will use the law to prevent all sorts of legitimate criticisms of public figures.

Bryant

[TimberValley]

2. OK, but maybe they should be made to pay compensation or some sort of penalty

if what they publish is later proven false.

[el_bryanto]

3. It sounds good - but it could have a chilling effect on discourse

In particular if public figures use these rules to punish reporters that print negative things about them constantly.

Bryant

[TimberValley]

4. If the information is false, though, why shouldn't such reporters be punished?

Although I do agree that such a thing might be done selectively and as a means of quieting certain reporters.

[hack89]

5. The bar has to be high to discourage frivolous lawsuits

even if the media wins, it can be expensive. We want our press to feel they can report on public officials without constantly looking over their shoulders for a law suit.

A free press is critical for open and transparent government. The line should always be drawn to favor the press.

[TimberValley]

6. Freedom of press shouldn't apply if the information is false.

Media that publishes false information isn't free media, it's tainted media.

[hack89]

8. I want the government to be scared of the press

yes, there needs to be responsibility and accountability but the balance of power has to be on the side of the press (and indirectly the public).

[TimberValley]

9. What I had in mind in the OP wasn't so much the government, but individuals.

I think that gossip magazines and tabloids really need to be held accountable for the things they publish.


You have a good point about government, but that was not really the topic I had in mind.

[onenote]

7. +1

[bemildred]

10. What is required is a clear distinction between observed fact and opinion.

That can be tricky at the boundaries, but that's what juries are for. Make it a civil matter and let the jury sort it out.

[dsc]

11. well if you go too far then you have the English system

where Liberace was able to sue and win when he was called gay. The problem with the if it is false, you lose standard, is that if you over punish honest mistakes it will have a chilling effect. Under your standard Bush could have sued Rather over his AWOL report.

[TimberValley]

12. True, but some media sources could also disguise intentional falsehood as honest mistakes. n/t.

[TimberValley]

13. "Honest mistakes" should still be suable, just like any other industry.

If a electrical-wiring contractor, for instance, makes an honest mistake with something that causes a fire to break out someone's house, that's an honest mistake, but they can still be sued for the damage caused by that person's house burning down.


Just because a mistake was made without malice doesn't mean the people who made the mistake should not be made to suffer a penalty of some sort.

[dsc]

14. Here is why we have this standard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices",[3] which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King, Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. The advertisement described actions against civil rights protesters, some of them inaccurately, some of which involved the police force of Montgomery, Alabama. Referring to the Alabama State Police, the advertisement stated that "They have arrested [King] seven times..."[4] However, at that point he had been arrested four times. Although the Montgomery Public Safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, was not named in the advertisement, the inaccurate criticism of the actions by the police was considered as defamation against him as well by virtue of his position and duty to supervise the police department.

Alabama law denied a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning their official conduct unless they first make a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply, so Sullivan sent such a request.[1] The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand. Instead it wrote a letter[citation needed] stating, among other things, that "we ... are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you".[1] Sullivan did not respond but instead filed this "libel" suit a few days later. Further, he sued four black ministers mentioned in the ad, specifically Ralph Abernathy, S.S. Seay, Sr., Fred Shuttlesworth, and Joseph Lowery. Sullivan won $500,000 in an Alabama court judgment.[5]

The Times did subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who asserted that the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and ... improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and ex-officio chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama."[1] When asked to explain why there had been a retraction for the Governor but not for Sullivan, the Secretary of the Times testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by the Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the state and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the ad purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the state authorities and the Board of Education presumably of which the Governor is the ex-officio chairman...." On the other hand, he testified that he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."[1]
The court's decision

The Court ruled for The Times, 9–0.[5] The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was found constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. The decision further held that under the proper safeguards the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for Sullivan.
Actual malice

The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice, which in this context refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than the ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained that "'[m]alice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."

[onenote]

15. for non-public figures that is the law.

Malice applies when the person about whom the false statement was made is a public figure -- someone presumed to have more access to publicly rebutting the false statement than a public figure.

Here is what one invites when one loosens the restrictions on libel/slander actions against public figures:

In the leading case of NY Times v. Sullivan, the Times ran an ad soliciting contributions to a defense fund for Martin Luther King, Jr. who had been arrested, along with other civil rights activists, in Alabama. The ad was highly critical of the Montgomery, Alabama police force and made certain factual misstatements (including, for example, claiming that MLK had been arrested seven times when the correct number was four). Even though the ad didn't refer expressly to the Montgomery chief of police (Sullivan), and even though the Times published a partial retraction, Sullivan sued in state court and won a half million dollar judgment against the Times.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a higher standard than mere negligence was needed to make out a case of libel where a public figure, such as the chief of police, was involved.

It also is worth noting that Justices William O. Douglas and William Brennan were of the view that the "malice" standard ought to apply even to private plaintiffs.