| Revision as of 21:05, 1 January 2008 editOlberon (talk | contribs)526 edits Undid revision 181336707 by Anyeverybody (talk) Read BPL rules again, it does violate.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:22, 2 January 2008 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Notable cases where neutral reportage was used as a defense: remove dead endsNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| == Notable cases where neutral reportage was used as a defense == | == Notable cases where neutral reportage was used as a defense == | ||
| Whilst the validity of the defense is questioned, it has been used successfully in some cases whilst other have failed to convince judges that they are protected by the defense. | Whilst the validity of the defense is questioned, it has been used successfully in some cases whilst other have failed to convince judges that they are protected by the defense. | ||
| ===Failures=== | ===Failures=== | ||
| Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton, 2005 <ref></ref><br/> | Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton, 2005 <ref></ref><br/> | ||
| Khalid Iqbal Khawar v. ] | |||
| ===Successes=== | ===Successes=== | ||
| Edwards v. ], 1977<br/> | |||
| Christopher and Barry Roberts v. ]<ref>http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=203</ref><br> | Christopher and Barry Roberts v. ]<ref>http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=203</ref><br> | ||
| Barbara Schwarz v. ]<ref name=tribune>{{Citation|last =Smith|first =Christopher| publication-date =May 13, 2003| title = S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System| place =The Salt Lake Tribune| url =| accessdate =}}.</ref><ref name=fac>Hanby, Christopher First Amendment Center, 06.14.05.</ref> | Barbara Schwarz v. ]<ref name=tribune>{{Citation|last =Smith|first =Christopher| publication-date =May 13, 2003| title = S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System| place =The Salt Lake Tribune| url =| accessdate =}}.</ref><ref name=fac>Hanby, Christopher First Amendment Center, 06.14.05.</ref> | ||
Revision as of 06:22, 2 January 2008
Neutral reportage is a common law defense against libel and defamation law suits usually involving the media and journalists. It is a limited exception to the common law rule that one who repeats a defamatory statement is just as guilty as the first person who published it. To be considered neutral reportage the statements must meet certain conditions.
- The statements are newsworthy and about a public matter.
- The statements are made by a responsible or prominent source
- The statements are about a public official or public figure
- The statements are repeated accurately and neutrally
Using this defense a defendant can claim that they are not implying the offending statement is true but simply reporting in a neutral manner that the potentially libelous statements were made.
The success of the defense can be mixed, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel stated that "there is a great deal of inconsistency among state court decisions" and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the concept.
Notable cases where neutral reportage was used as a defense
Whilst the validity of the defense is questioned, it has been used successfully in some cases whilst other have failed to convince judges that they are protected by the defense.
Failures
Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton, 2005
Successes
Christopher and Barry Roberts v. Searchlight Magazine
Barbara Schwarz v. The Salt Lake Tribune
References
- Youm, Kyu Ho (2006). "Recent Rulings Weaken Neutral Reportage Defense". Newspaper Research Journal (Winter 2006). University of Memphis.
- U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear 'neutral reportage,' Virginia police records cases
- http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=203
- Smith, Christopher (May 13, 2003), S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System, The Salt Lake Tribune
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). - Hanby, Christopher Utah appeals court backs reporting privilege First Amendment Center, 06.14.05.