Journalists, bloggers and some corporate legal departments are concerned about a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that may lead to changes in libel law.

As reported by Boston Globe reporter Jonathan Saltzman, the Feb 13 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston would allow a former salesman at Staples to sue the company for libel. The former salesman, Alan S. Noonan, believes that he was libeled by an email sent by a Staples vice president to about 1,500 employees stating that the salesman had been fired for violations of company procedures regarding expenses reimbursements.

According to the Boston Globe reporter:

Although the decision did not involve a news outlet, it has alarmed journalists, bloggers, and media law specialists, who worry that it could discourage news organizations from pursuing true stories that might cast subjects in a bad light.

When I was a journalism major at Eastern Illinois University, I paid attention during Communications Law class. I knew that I might have to walk a delicate legal line some day, and wanted to understand how far I could go in telling the “truth” without fear of being successfully sued for libel.

This current case has an interesting twist because the judges drew upon a relatively obscure 1902 state law when reaching their decision to allow the libel suit to proceed. That 1902 state law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show “actual malice” by the person publishing the statement. But the definition of “actual malice” is not the same as the one taught in j-schools.

I remember learning in Comm. Law that before a public figure can overcome a journalist’s First Amendment right to free speech in a libel case, “actual malice” has to be proven. That would mean that the journalist acted in reckless disregard for the truth, or knew a published statement was false.

But the Staples suit benefits from Massachusetts law that defines “actual malice” as “malevolent intent or ill will.” According to the Boston Globe story:

Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; the Staples vice president who sent the email had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass email before, and jurors might conclude he “singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him,” the court wrote.

So although people like the appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee point out that the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants—and not journalists—journalists are taking note. The Boston Globe reports that 51 news organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that the decision, if allowed to stand, “will create a precedent that hinders the media’s ability to rely on truthful publication to avoid defamation liability.”

At EIU’s daily student newspaper, the Daily Eastern News, our motto was, “Tell the Truth, and Don’t Be Afraid.” I hope that this ruling does not impact journalism students in the future, who might be told in Communication Law to “Tell the Truth, But Not If You’re Going to Get Sued.”

My thanks to Evan Hill and the EIU Journalism list-serv for passing on this news.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm and is filed under blogging, communications, journalism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.