South Carolina Appeals Court Ruling Outlines Libel Law Principles

My November column for the South Carolina Press Association:

On Nov. 6, a three-judge panel of the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the former owner of the Charleston City Paper in a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper over two editorial columns about a football team’s pre-game ritual that some considered racist. While the appellate court’s decision is not too surprising, it does illuminate several well-established principles of libel law in South Carolina that should be known by writers, journalists and editors here.

On the Radio About My Book

This morning I was a guest on Talk Louisiana with Jim Engster, speaking about libel in politics and my book, and previewing the Nov. 13 "How Far is Too Far? Libel Law in Political Campaigns"
event at Louisiana State University.  The conversation is archived at https://www.wrkf.org/post/monday-november-11th-gene-mills-eric-robinson-jessica-kemp.

Is New York Times v. Sullivan in danger?

The basis of modern American media law is the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, in which a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment required that limitations be placed on defamation law. But the Sullivan decision has been the subject of criticism in some circles ever since it was decided, the latest being a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Rhetoric aside, libel and media law haven't changed that much

My August column for the South Carolina Press Association:

In an initiative fostered by the Boston Globe, newspapers and other news organizations are publishing editorials this week—primarily this Thursday, Aug. 16—denouncing President Trump’s frequent attacks on the news media, including his assertion that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

Washington woes, a Charleston charade and some hope

My January column for the South Carolina Press Association...
 
When I was a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press we had an “outrage meter” drawn on one of the whiteboards in the reception area. The “needle” on the meter would be redrawn frequently, either towards the left or right, depending on the latest developments in media law and the perceived threats to freedom of speech and the press.

During most of my tenure, the outrage needle mainly fluctuated in the middle range. But if the Reporters Committee still has such a meter, recent developments on the national level and here in South Carolina would be pushing the needle into the red danger zone, and perhaps beyond. But there are also reminders of the importance of the First Amendment, and the role of robust media in the democratic process.

About 'of and concerning,' and libel under Trump

My latest column for the South Carolina Press Association:

Donald Trump and Libel

This is my first column for the South Carolina Press Association's newsletter:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, it is clear that he does not have much regard for the media.

Court Finds No Actual Malice in Communist Claim

I've written before how courts in California, Minnesota and Washington have held that calling someone a Communist can be the basis of a valid libel claim when the audience is the Vietnamese-American community. One of these cases ended with a $4.5 million jury verdict, which led to the takeover of the newspaper defendant in that case.

Now a Texas appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a suit by an Assembly candidate against a the editor of a Vietnamese language magazine for accusing the candidate of sympathizing with the communist regime in Vietnam.

Alabama Continues Quixotic Quest

As reported by the Decatur Daily, a bill to revive Alabama's criminal defamation law has passed the state Senate after it was amended to clarify that criminal libel could not be used against statements regarding elected officials or candidates for elected office.

Alabama Bills Would Revive Criminal Libel Law

Two bills (HB529 and SB404) prefiled in the Alabama legislature before the start of its current regular session would revive the state's criminal defamation statute, 15 years after the Alabama Supreme Court held that law unconstitutional.

Trump and Libel: More of the Same

Presidential candidate Donald Trump's latest policy pronouncement is that if he is elected he will "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

Trump's statement has already gotten a fair amount of reaction (or maybe it's just that I'm well plugged in to the media law cognoscenti). But his statement of what he thinks the law should be is actually a statement of what the law currently is. 

Another One Bites the Dust: Minnesota's Criminal Libel Law Struck Down

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the state's criminal libel law (Minn. Stat. section 609.765), which allows for punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $3,000 for statements "which expose[] a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation,"is unconstitutionally overbroad. Minnesota v. Turner, No. A14-1408 (Minn. App. May 26, 2015).

Lawyers in the Vortex: When Attorneys Become Public Figures

 cross posted at the Digital Media Law Project
 There was substantial media coverage of the defense verdict in the recent "twibel" (i.e., libel via Twitter) case against singer Courtney Love. Although the case attracted attention for the medium in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made, the dispositive issue was a long-standing element of libel law that did not depend on Love's use of Twitter.  Specifically, the jury found that plaintiff Rhonda Holmes, a lawyer who briefly represented Love in disputes stemming from the estate of Love's husband Kurt Cobain, had not proved the degree of fault on Love's part necessary for Holmes to win the case.

Bloggers and Journalists Have Same First Amendment Rights, Court Rules

Bloggers and the public in general have the same First Amendment protections as the institutional press in defamation suits over statements on issues of public concern, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on Friday (Jan. 17).

First Twitter Libel Damages, By the Pound

While the two American lawsuits that each could have been the first known defamation suit stemming from a Twitter posting both settled (for details, click here and here), the settlement of a British case has now led to the first damage award in that county in a Twitter defamation case: £3,000 in damages (~ $4,840), plus £50,000 (~ $80,730) in court costs.