Misplaced Pages

Neutral reportage: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:19, 3 November 2007 editNeon white (talk | contribs)12,023 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 01:20, 3 November 2007 edit undoNeon white (talk | contribs)12,023 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
] ]
] ]
]

Revision as of 01:20, 3 November 2007

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.

Successes
Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 1977
Barbara Schwarz v.The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2003
Christopher and Barry Roberts v. Searchlight Magazine

Failures
Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton, 2005

Khalid Iqbal Khawar v. Globe International Inc.

References

  1. Youm, Kyu Ho (2006). "Recent Rulings Weaken Neutral Reportage Defense". Newspaper Research Journal (Winter 2006). University of Memphis.
  2. http://www.silha.umn.edu/Spring%202005%20Bulletin/Utah%20Newspaper%20is%20Protected%20by%20Neutral%20Reportage.pdf Utah Newspaper is Protected by Neutral Reportage And Fair Comment Privileges in Libel Case
  3. 'Neutral reportage' privilege recognized
  4. http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=203
  5. U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear 'neutral reportage,' Virginia police records cases
Categories:
Neutral reportage: Difference between revisions Add topic