The phrase "reckless disregard" for the truth, and "actual malice"
turn 50 today. It comes from a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Birmingham officials, notably the Public Safety Director, who felt they had been libeled by an ad in The New York Times.
You can listen to the actual arguments from half a century a ago online here.
The court decided mistakes in reporting about public officials were not automatic proof of libel.There must be reckless disregard of the truth by the reporter/media...i.e. He or she knew the information was false but used it anyway because of a bias against the official.
The same is not true of regular folks, non-officials. It is easier for them to prove libel.
[The Monday (and sometimes Sunday) Morning Media Memo is a regular feature of TimLennox.com]
turn 50 today. It comes from a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Birmingham officials, notably the Public Safety Director, who felt they had been libeled by an ad in The New York Times.
You can listen to the actual arguments from half a century a ago online here.
 |
| The Ad that sparked the suit. |
The court decided mistakes in reporting about public officials were not automatic proof of libel.There must be reckless disregard of the truth by the reporter/media...i.e. He or she knew the information was false but used it anyway because of a bias against the official.
The same is not true of regular folks, non-officials. It is easier for them to prove libel.
[The Monday (and sometimes Sunday) Morning Media Memo is a regular feature of TimLennox.com]
No comments:
Post a Comment