February 23, 2009

More Dangerous Than The Fairness Doctrine

A federal appellate panel has overruled the long-standing principal that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.

In the second rerun incident, a three-judge panel in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upended a long-held rule of law that “truth is an absolute defense” when someone is sued for libel. The opinion has surprised some experts on libel — and, if ultimately upheld, would uproot basic legal tenets of free speech and the law.

The judges reviewed Noonan v. Staples, a case involving an employee of a business-supply firm who sued the company after an executive sent an e-mail to about 1,500 employees detailing why the employee had been fired for what the company said was falsifying expense reports.

The court’s opinion said that even if the factual account sent to other workers were true, and apparently it was, the employee involved might be able to recover damages if the e-mail was sent maliciously — in this case, to humiliate the former employee. The judges sent the case back to a lower court in Massachusetts for reconsideration.

In other words, the mere fact that you have spoken truthfully will no longer be let your words be protected by the First Amendment -- a judge will be permitted to decide if you had sufficiently good cause to speak the truth, or whether your motives for doing so were base enough to strip you of your rights under the Constitution.

Just imagine what mischief could be made if this ruling is allowed to stand. Truthful statements would become actionable – presumably even those directed against public figures and public officials. Could you imagine, just as an example, what Bill Clinton could have done with such a precedent during the Lewinsky scandal? He’d have managed to close down most of the conservative media – after all, there was certainly a lot of malice involved in the way in which the story was handled, even though the details of the case were certainly true. Do we really want the free flow of truthful information to stifled by the threat of a libel suit?

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'd suggest you read the chapter in Louis Nizer's My Life In Court on Westbrook Pegler, or see the play A Case of Libel. While truth is an absolute defense, malice sometimes changes the game.

Posted by: PBCliberal at Mon Feb 23 12:16:54 2009 (VbwGD)

2 Except for the fact that the book details a case that predates NY Times v. Sullivan, which set the constitutional standard of actual malice in libel cases -- making a statement knowing its falsity, or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is true or false. If, as in this case, the statement is known to be true, it is logically impossible to prove meet that burden.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Feb 23 14:27:08 2009 (ETX8/)

3 Are you suggesting that Mr. Noonan who was humiliated in front of his coworkers was a public figure?

Posted by: PBCliberal at Mon Feb 23 14:30:12 2009 (VbwGD)

4 Are you suggesting that Mr. Noonan is a public figure? If Reynolds v. Pegler were decided today the outcome would probably be different, but only because they were both in the public eye. Many things Pegler said were true or could not be proven true nor false, but the malicious intent was obvious and that made them defamatory. Unless the Staples employee is a public figure, NYT v. Sullivan isn't going to change much.

Posted by: PBCliberal at Mon Feb 23 14:38:07 2009 (VbwGD)

5 I'm not suggesting that Pegler is a public figure. I am suggesting that, for purposes of libel cases, malice has been defined as making a statement knowing that it is false or without concern for whether it is true or false. It is therefore impossible to argue that Staples is guilty of circulating the memo maliciously in a legal sense -- unless one overrules Sullivan OR one argues that truth is irrelevant in libel cases.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Feb 24 06:59:47 2009 (ETX8/)

6 I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. Miriam http://www.craigslistguide.info

Posted by: Miriam at Tue Feb 24 20:57:40 2009 (9eTbr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.005, elapsed 0.0134 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0099 seconds, 35 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]