Thursday, March 31, 2005
Good, bad or ugly?
I stole this from steel (once again) and I'm not quite clear on if this could be a bad thing or a good thing.
- The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.
Instead, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."
The case turned on whether the 1st Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press includes a "neutral reporting privilege." Most judges around the nation have said the press does not enjoy this privilege.
- In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for the paper said news organizations should be allowed to report what public figures say, regardless of whether it is true or false.
Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false.
But noted Philadelphia lawyer Richard Sprague, who represented the mayor and the councilman, said the high court should not "grant a license to knowingly publish defamatory falsehoods." In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the case of Troy Publishing vs. Norton without comment.
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/support/banners/dnbutt14.gif){kind=small}
![[ Registered ]](http://www.ehsany.com/blogshares5.gif){kind=small}
![[ Registered ]](http://feedster.net/i/addtomyfeedster4.gif)
