Many states offer protection against libel suits that plaintiffs can’t win but often use to stifle criticism. A bill proposed in the U.S. House recently would extend that kind of protection everywhere.
Little in May 2009 sued Consolidated Publishing, which publishes The Star, claiming the newspaper had libeled him in a story that examined alleged connections between him and a consultant the city hired to audit its human resources practices. Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge Malcolm B. Street Jr. on Tuesday granted The Star’s request for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the newspaper.
The news story in question, which ran Feb. 19, 2009, paraphrased City Councilman John Spain, who said he’d heard rumors of a relationship between Little and the consultant, Yolanda Jackson of Uniontown. Little is quoted in the story as saying there was no relationship.
In his order, Street said the newspaper had not printed anything defamatory in repeating Spain’s claim of a “buzz” about an alleged “personal relationship” with Jackson.
The term “personal relationship,” Street wrote, “is not capable of having a defamatory meaning. At worst, it implies something other than a professional relationship and in this context is not something that rises to the level of being a defamatory statement about [Little] or Jackson.”
Street also noted that as a public official, Little had to show “actual malice” on the part of the newspaper. That specific legal term has a special meaning dating to a landmark 1964 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The court held that held that news organizations must have knowingly published false information about public officials, or published with reckless disregard for falsity for it to be libelous, a condition it described as “actual malice.”
Street cited Alabama case law in noting that it was Little’s responsibility to prove the newspaper acted with actual malice, something he said the councilman’s case did not do.
Little declined to comment on the case Tuesday, and neither he nor his attorney, William Eugene Rutledge, returned calls Wednesday seeking comment.
The case’s conclusion is a common one for libel suits brought by public figures, according to Bill Loving, professor and chair of the journalism department at California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo and co-author of the textbook “Law of Mass Communication: Freedom and Control of Print and Broadcast Media”.
In The Star’s case, he said, the judge apparently had two reasons to dismiss the suit.
“One, there was no defamation, so there’s no need to have a trial,” Loving said. “Second, if there’s no actual malice, the plaintiff can’t win, so there’s no reason to have a trial.”
In California, Loving said, what’s known as an “anti-SLAPP” law makes it easier to dismiss such lawsuits more quickly. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” At least 28 states have such laws in place, which Loving said protects the general public along with the press.
“Most SLAPP suits are filed against activists or people speaking out on issues affecting their communities,” Loving said.
Alabama has no anti-SLAPP law.
A proposed federal law would extend anti-SLAPP protection nationwide. U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Memphis, proposed the bill in December. He sponsored a similar measure that became law when he was a Tennessee state senator after he and community activists were sued by a company for working against a project neighbors objected to. Powerful groups frequently try to silence critics by outspending them in court, Cohen said. That can intimidate people and the press, he said.
“Peoples’ First Amendment rights, which I hold very dear, should not be held hostage,” he said.
Cohen’s bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and has seen no action.
“I plan to be here for a while, so I hope to get it done,” Cohen said.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the advocacy group Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said a national anti-SLAPP law would be a powerful protection.
“It is a way of protecting dialogue about issues of great public importance while preserving the right to sue in cases where the person bringing the lawsuit may truly have been libeled and damaged,” Dalglish said.
The strongest state laws allow defendants who win to automatically have their attorney’s fees paid for by the plaintiffs. Cohen’s bill would allow that protection, as well.
Bob Davis, The Star’s editor, said the paper has spent “thousands” defending against Little’s lawsuit and may have to spend more if Little appeals the judge’s ruling. He said the paper is considering whether to sue Little to force him to pay those expenses.
Post a Comment
