Link to What's New This Week Neutral Report Privilege

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

First Amendment

Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: March 31, 2003
Latest Update: March 31, 2003
E-Mail Icon jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Site Teaching Modules Neutral Report Privilege

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, March 2003.
"Fair use" encouraged.

This essay is based on Suit Challenges Right to Report Political Slurs By Adam Liptak. The New York Times. March 31, 2003. At p. A 8. Backup

Discussion Questions

  1. What is the neutral report privilege?

    Consider "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for example, has held that "when a responsible, prominent organization makes serious charges against a public figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges." A few courts have recognized the privilege even in cases involving private individuals where the matter was one of public concern." You'll find this in California Rejects 'Neutral Report' Privilege in Private Figure Cases On Barabara Wartelle Wall's Legal Watch.

    Consider also:

    "The newspaper is responsible for everything it publishes and if it publishes a false and defamatory statement with the requisite fault and no protection, the newspaper may be liable for libel. If Kathy says Bill is a liar, and if you report that as a news story, the publisher is responsible for the defamation, if Bill can prove he is not a liar. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that saying someone is a liar is pretty clearly a defamatory statement of fact, provable as true or false.

    "There are no "exceptions" to this liability rule, but there is protection for the publisher under some circumstances. The most important example is the "official proceedings privilege" or "fair reports privilege." If your reporter is covering a trial or similar proceeding, a session of the legislature, or a public meeting, you may repeat the gist of what is said in those settings, as long as your report is fair and accurate. If the matter is one of public concern and if your report is fair and accurate, the official proceedings privilege will usually apply. This is public policy developed by state courts to protect reports on proceedings of interest to the public. Because it is a state law privilege, there may be variations on the way this rule is applied in your state."
    From Frequently Asked Questions About Defending Against a Libel Suit on News Law AND: "In October of 1995, the Baltimore Sun caught up with Boyd, reporting that he was working as a Shock Trauma surgeon without a license to practice medicine in Maryland. The Sun article took the story from an official at [University of Maryland Medical System] UMMS, who explained the two years of deception, then called Boyd a "capable surgeon despite his lack of credentials." . . .

    After the Sun broke the story, the Washington Post, the AP, the Prince George's Journal, and eventually, the National Enquirer picked up the story. The Prince George's Journal published the AP wire story with minor editorial changes. Boyd sued all of the newspapers and claimed that because the publishers did more than just reprint what was said by UMMS, they lost the "fair reports privilege" protecting fair and accurate accounts of government statements and actions by government agencies. The court ruled otherwise.

    "The reports made by each of the media Defendants, although they certainly do not report everything that [UMMS Executive Vice President] Joel Lee said verbatim, are substantially accurate accounts of what Mr. Lee said. There is no question that the media Defendants were reporting the statements of Joel Lee, a government employee, concerning the actions of [Boyd], another government employee, with regard to medical licensure, an act of a government agency.

    Since this is one of the ways the "fair reports" privilege functions in Maryland and most other states, the court ruled that it protected all the news stories, unless Plaintiff had raised evidence that any reporter had acted with "actual malice" or reckless disregard for the truth, knowing that the information was false. Since Boyd had not raised sufficient evidence of actual malice, the publishers' motions for summary judgement were granted.

    The court granted UMMS's motion for summary judgement as well, based on a privilege to publish statements that advance "social policies of greater importance than the vindication of a plaintiff's reputational interest." This privilege requires that the plaintiff show actual malice to overcome the privilege and again, Boyd was unable to do that. . . . "

    From ER Doc" Not Licensed: News Reports On UMMS Actions OK Copyright Alice Neff Lucan 1998. Link to Previous Articles in left-most frame; then link to ER Doc.

    References