Could bloggers be sued for telling the truth?

If you've ever worked in journalism, you've probably heard the expression, "Truth is the ultimate defense against libel."

Well, maybe not, according to a new court decision that could leave countless bloggers and other citizen journalists exposed to libel suits for true statements.

In a bulletin posted today, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said a federal appellate court "took a unique approach to libel law by ruling that true statements can be libelous if published maliciously."

The case is Noonan v. Staples. It deals with a Staples employee whose firing for travel and expense violations was announced via executive e-mail to 1,500 employees. Alan Noonan did not question the truth of the e-mail, but he claimed it was libelous because it was sent with malicious intent.

The issue is far from settled. But the fact that it could now go before a jury has sparked serious concerns among First Amendment activists, who call it "the most dangerous libel decision in decades."

So why is this such bad news for bloggers? Because the court's decision drew a distinction between libel rules for "public figures" (ie, anyone featured in a mainstream news publication) and libel rules for everyone else.

The Reporters Committee bulletin offers this ominous quote from Rob Bertsche, a prominent First Amendment attorney in Boston:

“It's a disastrous decision for the media, and in particular for the new media: bloggers, people who post on Facebook, indeed anyone who has a website but lacks press credentials.

"That's because the mainstream media may be protected, at least haphazardly, by an assumption that if The Boston Globe writes about a topic, then by definition the topic is one of public concern. But no such presumption is likely to protect an outspoken blogger's critical remarks.” 

Today's photo credit: Meredith Farmer on Flickr.
Hat tip to my friend and former newspaper colleague, M Hoyer.

Comments

[Rebecca (Ramblings by Reba)]

Well, that's not encouraging news, now is it?

[Daniel Schildt]

Interesting details, thanks for sharing. I wonder how this would affect people who live outside of USA but have their sites hosted in server located in hosting center / service provider at USA.

[Eammon]

I think this should simple. If the intent is to cause harm or defame, then it is wrong -- as it seems is the case above.

Just as a newspaper reporter would not get away with printing a story about an ex-bf/gf's nasty habits in the name of "public safety."

[Demand Justice]

Clearly the truth is that the The Reporters Committee is party with the members of the Illuminati, ergo the secret shadow society that controls the amount of corn that makes it to Frito Lay on a daily basis. With this kind of blatant bullying of the American people what can we expect next – the iron maiden for parking violations while intoxicated on paint fumes, I think not. The luddites had it right! DOWN WITH THE MACHINE!

[Paul Murray]

This has always been the case, as far as I know. Just because something is true, does not nessesarily give you the right to tell all and sundry about it.

If something is defamatory and published with intent to defame, then the truth of it does not make the act any less malicious. Penalising people who act out of malice is entirely what law is all about.

[David Griner]

Paul, one of the hallmarks of defamation, slander and libel has long been that the statements must be malicious and false (or at least abused out of context). To redefine libel as pertaining to embarrassing truths would be a pretty substantial shift, especially if it left social media users more vulnerable than news organizations and others who have the resources to fight off litigious bullying.