Getting cold in here
From the AP:
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a lawsuit against a newspaper, leaving the media in Pennsylvania legally vulnerable when they report defamatory comments by public figures.
The Pennsylvania case sets no legal precedent, but want to talk about a chilling effect? I can see the ice forming right now.
What it involves is a newspaper story in which one city councilman was quoted as calling the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters." The news report was accurate; the allegations were false.
In an area where it's not uncommon for elected officials to call each other names -- offensive, insulting names at that -- this ruling should cause everyone -- not just newspapers -- to gasp. We have always believed that elected officials are responsible and accountable for their words and deeds. That's why we question closed meetings, why we demand access to public documents and why we report what they say. It's vital for good government that citizens know what their elected officials say and how they act, as well as how they vote.
The publisher of the Daily Local News in West Chester, the newspaper being sued, says it quite clearly: "As far as I'm concerned, the public should be able to learn as much as possible about our elected officials and what they have to say about one another."
I'm no lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I'll be consulting our counsel for more insight.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The lawyers run the show, don't they?
Posted on March 30, 2005 7:55 AM
This case really bothers me. If the politicians can stop you from printing what was actually said, then what will stop them from telling you not only what not to print, but what to print?
And us little guys won't have a prayer.
Posted on March 31, 2005 8:13 PM
I wish I could see the story. I mean, was the story about the man saying this or was it a story about something else and he was quoted saying this?
Posted on April 1, 2005 12:43 PM
Here's what www.cjrdaily.org says:
In April, 1995, a special council meeting of the borough of Parkesburg, Pa., was called to address the infighting and name-calling that routinely disrupted regular sessions. Things got out of hand so quickly that the meeting was adjourned after three minutes.
Then, Councilman William T. Glenn Sr. cornered a reporter for the West Chester Daily Local News and gave him an earful. Council President James Norton and Mayor Alan M. Wolfe were "queers," "liars," "criminals," "draft dodgers" and "child molesters," Glenn told 26-year-old reporter Tom Kennedy.
The next day, Kennedy's story about the meeting was published under a headline reading "Slurs, insults drag town into controversy."
Posted on April 1, 2005 1:12 PM
Hmmmm, if the proceedings were being televised as many council meetings of today are, would the carrier of the meeting be involved in the suit?
Problem is the politician ran his mouth instead of his brain and now the entire city/county knows the depth of his ignorance, if they didn't already, and he wants to sue.
The case should be thrown out.
Posted on April 2, 2005 8:50 AM