Libel Suits OK Even If Libel Is Truthful

Defeat Globalism writes to tell us that many journalists, bloggers, and media law specialists are concerned about a new ruling by a US Court of Appeals in Boston. The new ruling is allowing a former Staples employee to sue the company for libel after an email was sent out informing other employees that he had been fired for violations of company procedures regarding expense reimbursements. "Staples has asked the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling, and 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.' But Wendy Sibbison, the Greenfield appellate lawyer for the fired Staples employee, Alan S. Noonan, said the ruling applies only to lawsuits by private figures against private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business, over purely private matters."

Re:Can someone define 'libel'?

[Chyeld]

Noonan filed a complaint that said Staples had defamed him and violated several employment agreements. US District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker dismissed the claim, writing that "truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action under Massachusetts law."

Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 state law.

The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.

In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.

But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.

Sibbison - who says her client, Noonan, was a "sloppy record keeper" but not a thief - said the ruling lets him sue a company that "violated its own policies on employee privacy" through the mass e-mail.

Rather than wait for a lawyer, you can just read the relevant part of the article.

The First Amendment Didn't Come Up

[XLawyer]

It is incorrect to say that truth is an absolute defense to a claim of libel. Apparently, Massachusetts law allows a suit to go ahead based on defamatory statements that are based on "actual malice."

Possibly Massachusetts law is incompatible with the US Constitution in this regard. I am inclined to believe it is. But Staples never brought it up--if they had, the panel would have mentioned it in at least one their opinions, and the court didn't.

In other words, the First Amendment question simply didn't come up. The sole question was what Massachusetts law was, not whether that law was consistent with the Constitution.

Re:Meh

[FiniteElementalist]

Looking at the article, it looks like it is even less news because the ruling is based entirely on an obscure Massachusetts state law, which would only apply to those in Massachusetts even if it was not overturned. And that law has the requirement of demonstrating "actual malice", which probably will fall flat rather quick.

This might be a bad ruling, but it seems like it is rather limited in scope and likely to be overturned regardless.

Re:What does the first amendment actually say?

[jbeaupre]

Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in civil cases.

You couldn't have said it better! http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend07 [ushistory.org]

Really. You couldn't.

Re:Meh

[interkin3tic]

The dumbed down version: all news is temporary, so even if it will be overruled, this is news.

public disclosure of private facts

[SignalFreq]

I think it will stick.

Terms of a person's firing are almost always non-public. A company as large as Staples can't publish to ALL it's employees that they fired Bob over $5.00 misappropriated on an expense report. That's malicious. It's appropriate to say we will (and have) terminated over expense reports being wrong without giving the offenders name.

I can't think of any company I've worked at that's attached names to memos like that. Even companies that actually call the cops on somebody don't typically inform the employees of the person's name, or particular details of the infraction beyond the company "rule book" for just this reason.

Added bold for emphasis. This whole thing seems like it should be a "public disclosure of private facts" suit, not a Libel suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation [wikipedia.org]

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."

Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh]

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's not an absolute defense against libel. Truth is an AFFIRMATIVE defense against libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [wikipedia.org]

Re:What does the first amendment actually say?

[westlake]

Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in civil cases.

Unless the civil action involves the state or federal governments.

Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh]

[Geoffrey.landis]

It's not an absolute defense against libel. Truth is an AFFIRMATIVE defense against libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [wikipedia.org]

Thanks for the wikipedia link. However, note that wikipedia lists truth as a defense against allegation of libel as the very first example in the article on absolute defense (legal) [wikipedia.org]

You are misusing Wikipedia

[Estanislao Martínez]

The law is different in every state, and even often within different counties of the same state. You cannot apply Wikipedia's definitions of crimes and torts to cases that are being disputed under the law of one specific jurisdiction, because there's a very good chance that the definitions and case law is not the same.

Wikipedia's definitions of crimes and torts are a usually a sort of lowest common denominator to help you understand the overall landscape of what general types of acts jurisdictions treat as crimes or torts; so, yes, jurisdictions normally have laws that deal with the public disclosure of private facts. The precise classification is always jurisdiction-specific; some jursidictions might have a separate tort or offense for it, some might treat it as one subcase of other offenses.

First Amendment fears are ridiculous . . .

[pacergh]

Whoever that press lawyer is must not have done well in Constitutional law, or must be angling for more billable hours for "research" from his press clients.

There is almost no way this can apply to media defendants. Further, the only way it could apply would strip it of almost all of its teeth.

Still, I think those wondering why this didn't fall under a privacy tort are on the mark.

This is the release of private information of a highly embarrassing nature, one of the four classic privacy torts. The question is how does the state in question treat such a privacy tort (each is different).

Another interesting aspect of this case is the law in question, from 1902, is 12 years after the famous Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy" Harvard Law Review article. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)

It appears the 1902 law may have been an early attempt to recognize a privacy tort through the tort of libel.

Finally, the torts are not criminal cases. Therefore, the actions of Staples can not be classified as "illegal." Accordingly, questions of intent are not terribly relevant (accept as far as specific tort elements are concerned, and then they are weighed differently than criminal intents).

Re:Meh

[joe_bruin]

Wait, so not only do you read the summary and the article, but you even click on the author's website link?!

I know, I'm a bad Slashdotter. Actually someone pointed this poster out to me a while ago, and I verified his claims and have since been more aware of his activities.

You're right that we should not ignore stories from authors we don't agree with. But we should also be wary of sources that are trying to push an agenda through their presentation of a story. Everyone has bias, but it seems that the stronger the bias, the more distorted the truth becomes to fit the author's world view. There is some threshold in which the presenter can no longer be counted on as a source of reliable information, even in seemingly benign cases.

Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh]

[belmolis]

Truth is both an affirmative defense and an absolute defense against libel. They don't conflict. An affirmative defense is one in which the burden of proof is on the defendant. An absolute defense is one which, if proven, is entirely sufficient to prevent conviction. That is, if the defendant can show that what he said is true, a ruling for the plaintiff is impossible. Because truth is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the truth of what he said.

Re:Truth is a defense against libel [Re:Meh]

[Eskarel]

The point is even an absolute defense doesn't give you carte blanche.

If someone attacks you with deadly force, you are allowed to respond with deadly force. It doesn't entitle you to tie up the person you attacked and slowly torture them to death.

Just so, truth is a defense against libel, but it shouldn't necessarily give you the right to destroy someone's reputation without good reason. There is no public interest in his former coworkers know why he lost his job, at least not one which overrides his right not to have it spread. It also appears that the law in question never allowed truth as an absolute defense of libel anyway.